The United Kingdom will reduce its army and attempt to establish a better-equipped force that it claims can be mobilized more rapidly, as the war rages on and prompts a reassessment of policy, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The new strategic plan released by the Ministry of Defense on Tuesday tries to address complaints of the British military, which critics say lacks operational equipment and ammunition at a critical time. 

Since the Cold War's conclusion, Britain's military has evolved from a predominantly European-based army to an imperial force participating in the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it is attempting to help Ukraine with a much smaller budget. 

Read more: UK military still marred with misogyny, sexual abuse of women

Rather than beefing up its military, the United Kingdom stated that it will focus on acquiring technology "to ensure we have a force greater than the sum of our parts." The proposal calls for the formation of a rapid-deployment force capable of rushing to troublesome hot spots, as well as a program to ensure a more efficient armament procurement system. 

After transferring substantial portions of its arsenal to Ukraine, the government claimed that it will reallocate 2.5 billion pounds (about $3.2 billion) of its defense budget to rebuild munitions inventories.

Related News

UK military still marred with misogyny, sexual abuse of women

Despite the war in Europe, the UK has cut its number of troops in the army from 82,000 to 72,500, its smallest ground force since 1714. It is also moving forward with plans to replace its 227-strong fleet of aging Challenger tanks with 148 contemporary models. This comes as military authorities claim that Ukraine's struggle against Russia demonstrated that a smaller, better-equipped army can inflict huge casualties on a larger adversary.

The UK is among the most prominent NATO members in Europe and spends the most on defense and weapons to Ukraine.

The high cost of combat in Ukraine, which has exhausted massive stores of shells and armor throughout a protracted battle, has also prompted analysts and military experts to question Britain's decision to prioritize technology over scale. 

According to a UK Parliament's Defense Committee report this month, “The U.K. now maintains an extremely limited reserve of fighting equipment, including warships, modern armored vehicles or combat aircraft."

Military spending as a percentage of GDP in the United Kingdom has been cut in half since the mid-1980s, to roughly 2.2%. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recently announced an increase in military spending of £5 billion over the next two years. This will mostly be used to upgrade nuclear defenses and replenish weapons given over to Ukraine.

The government began increasing defense expenditure in 2020, with the goal of reaching £50 billion for the first time in UK history this year, but most of the recent increase has been eaten away by inflation. Sunak claims that the United Kingdom aspires to spend 2.5% of GDP on defense, but only when economic conditions permit. With years of poor economic development forecast, the government will almost certainly have to slash other government programs.

The British leadership is also set to change as Defense Secretary Ben Wallace announced this weekend that he would resign from his post later in 2023. Wallace has long been a supporter of increased military spending and has warned that lack of funds could mean a harsh struggle for the British military. 

Patrick Sanders, the chief general of the British Army, will stand down in 2024 after just two years in office, a shorter stay than many in the Army anticipated. Sanders recently remarked that Britain should not hide behind NATO allies, relying on them to cover gaps in its own military. Wallace has argued that Britain is not dodging its responsibilities, stating that the country requires a force that is properly prepared rather than just large in numbers.