The Defence Secretary this month confirmed the largest single drone package in British history: 120,000 unmanned aerial vehicles to be supplied to Ukraine in 2026 alone, as part of a broader £3.75 billion military support package. The Treasury has also wired Kyiv another £752 million tranche of a £2.26 billion loan.
I want to be clear: I want Ukraine to win. Russia’s invasion is a vile criminal act and Ukrainians fighting for their country deserve our support. But there is a serious question every British voter should be asking: where is the equivalent investment in Britain’s own defence?
The Hollow Force Is a Real Phenomenon
The British Army is at its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars. The Royal Navy decommissioned two frigates last year because it could not crew them. The RAF’s frontline fighter strength is below that of the French Air Force. We have no working maritime patrol aircraft of our own design. Our nuclear submarine availability is at a generational low.
Meanwhile our principal ammunition stockpiles — according to repeated public testimony from senior officers — would be exhausted within days, not weeks, in a peer conflict. The Defence Committee has warned about this. The National Audit Office has warned about this. The Public Accounts Committee has warned about this. Successive defence reviews have promised “to be put right.” And then the politicians find money for everything except actual British defence.
Industry, Not Charity
The drone package is being presented as a win-win because most of the UAVs are made by British companies — Tekever, Windracers, Malloy Aeronautics. Fine. That is genuinely useful for British industry, and I welcome the boost to domestic drone manufacturing.
But ask yourself a different question. Why are British drone factories at full capacity producing systems for Ukraine while the British Army is short of its own drones? Why are we not first equipping our own Army to the same standard before exporting at scale? The answer is that supporting Ukraine is politically easier — and more press-friendly — than fixing the chronic, decades-long underinvestment in British capability.
Spending Choices Are Moral Choices
Britain has just sent another £752 million to Kyiv. The same week, council leaders across England were warning of bankruptcy. Adult social care providers are collapsing. Veterans — British veterans — are sleeping rough. The Royal British Legion is reporting record demand for hardship grants.
I am not arguing that we abandon Ukraine. I am arguing that a serious country budgets seriously. We cannot keep writing cheques abroad while pretending the bill at home doesn’t exist. And we cannot keep boasting about our generosity to Kyiv while our own armed forces are crewed by people working past their service terms because there is no one to replace them.
What Reform UK Would Do
Reform UK has long argued for defence spending to rise to a genuine 2.5% of GDP and onwards towards 3% — not on paper, not by reclassifying the intelligence budget, but in real terms on real capability. We’d front-load that investment into munitions, drones, air defence, and crewing — the unglamorous boring stuff that wins wars.
Continued support for Ukraine is right. But the precondition for being a useful ally is being a serious nation. You can’t defend democracy abroad if you can’t defend yourself at home.