Missing in action! Army is ordered to suspend training exercises to help save £30million as ‘600 troops stood down’ amid pressure on PM to increase defence spending
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Fresh detail has emerged on the scale of anger within the military over the Army's suspension of large-scale training, with former tank commander Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon calling the order "absolutely bonkers" and warning it signals to Russia that "an untrained British Army is no deterrent." Former Army chief General Sir Patrick Sanders branded the decision "unbelievably short-sighted," while it has also emerged that the Royal Navy and RAF have been told to cut spending too, and that submarine engineers are buying equipment themselves online because of shortages in military stores. The situation has been compared to the 1973 fuel crisis, when the armed forces were ordered to cut consumption by ten per cent.
The cuts follow Chancellor John Healey's decision to abandon a pledge to raise defence spending to three per cent of GDP by 2030, a target he had urged the country to adopt in his resignation speech as defence secretary in June; new Defence Secretary Wes Streeting now faces pressure over the reversal, after former SAS commander Richard Williams branded Healey a "lizard" for scrapping it. Reaching three per cent of GDP is estimated to cost an extra £10billion a year, with Nato's 3.5 per cent target by 2035 costing £25billion more, against current UK projections that peak at 2.7 per cent by 2030, well below Germany's planned 3.5 per cent. The row comes as Vladimir Putin has issued a thinly veiled threat against the UK, and follows a 2024 episode in which unfunded pay rises for troops also forced the MoD to cancel exercises and restrict ammunition and vehicle use.
- Ex-military chiefs slam Army training cuts as "bonkers" and short-sighted
- Navy and RAF also told to cut spending; sub crews buy own kit
- Raising defence spending to 3% would cost £10bn extra a year
New here? Start with this
Putin has ramped up pressure on Nato countries over defence spending, and Britain's response has become a political flashpoint. Chancellor John Healey previously backed raising UK defence spending to three per cent of GDP by 2030, but this pledge has now been dropped, with current plans only reaching 2.7 per cent by that date. Other Nato members, including Germany, have committed to spending more, which has fuelled criticism that Britain is falling behind allies at a time of heightened threat from Russia.
The Ministry of Defence oversees the Army, Royal Navy and RAF, and controls how much money each service gets for training, equipment and day-to-day running costs. Senior current and former military figures, including a former Army chief and a former tank commander, have publicly criticised recent budget decisions, arguing they weaken Britain's ability to deter potential adversaries. Wes Streeting has recently taken over as Defence Secretary and is now facing scrutiny over how the department manages these financial pressures.
This is not the first time budget constraints have affected military readiness: in 2024, unfunded pay rises for troops led to similar cuts in training and use of equipment. The recurring tension between funding pledges and actual budgets raises broader questions about how prepared the UK's armed forces are, and how seriously the government is treating warnings about growing threats from Russia.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for reversing the training suspension and committing to higher defence spending argue that deterrence depends on visible readiness: a well-resourced, well-drilled army signals resolve to adversaries, while stood-down exercises and rationed equipment do the opposite at a moment when Vladimir Putin has issued direct threats towards Britain. They point to the seniority and experience of the critics involved, including a former Army chief and a former tank commander, as evidence this is a professional judgement rather than political point-scoring, and note that allies such as Germany are moving decisively towards 3.5 per cent of GDP while the UK's trajectory lags behind. For them, defence is a core state obligation that should not be treated as discretionary spending subject to short-term savings drives, especially after a minister publicly championed the higher target before it was dropped.
The case against
Those defending the government's caution argue that public finances are under genuine strain, and that committing an extra £10-25billion a year to defence without a credible funding plan would mean either higher taxes, more borrowing, or cuts elsewhere in already-stretched public services such as health and social care. They would say that setting out an honest, gradually rising trajectory to 2.7 per cent, rather than pledging a headline figure it cannot yet afford, is the more responsible approach to governing, and that short-term savings measures such as pausing some exercises are a proportionate, reversible way to manage a tight budget rather than a sign of strategic neglect. On this view, matching every ally's percentage target is less important than spending well, and ministers should not be stampeded into unfunded commitments by pressure from retired officers or political rivals.
Full account
The British Army has been ordered to suspend large-scale training exercises as the Ministry of Defence looks to trim around £30 million from its budget, with reports suggesting as many as 600 soldiers have been left without scheduled activity as a result. A memo circulated to commanders is understood to have halted 'collective training' involving units of 90 or more personnel for the remainder of this financial year, restricting drills to smaller groups, though training involving drones is reported to be continuing unaffected. Among the casualties is a six-week exercise due to begin in Wales next week that would have involved Challenger 2 tanks and Apache attack helicopters. One source described the effect as leaving 'commanding officers with 600 blokes with nothing to do', while a separate military source called the halt 'absolutely devastating', saying training pauses of this kind run against the basic purpose of an army.
The move comes amid mounting political pressure over the government's approach to defence spending. Reports note that the target of committing three per cent of GDP to defence by 2030 has effectively been shelved, with current projections putting spending at closer to 2.7 per cent by that point — behind other NATO members such as Germany, which is aiming for 3.5 per cent. That retreat from the three per cent commitment was cited as a factor in the resignation of the defence secretary earlier this year, alongside that of the armed forces minister, and has continued to reverberate in Westminster. In the Commons, the chair of the Defence Select Committee pressed the prime minister to commit to a firm timetable for reaching three per cent, arguing that warm words were not enough given the scale of the threats facing the country, while the opposition has set out its own proposal to raise substantial extra funds for defence, largely by reducing welfare spending.
Retired senior military figures have been sharply critical of the decision to pause training. A former tank commander called it 'bonkers' and 'an incredible piece of self-harm', warning it would signal to Russia that the British Army was not currently a credible deterrent, while a former head of the Army described the move as 'unbelievably short-sighted'. Reports have drawn a comparison with the austerity measures imposed on the armed forces during the 1973 oil crisis, when troops were ordered to cut fuel consumption by ten per cent. The Royal Navy and RAF are also said to have been told to find savings, and the Chief of the Defence Staff has separately warned a parliamentary committee that without extra funding for running costs, wider operations — not just training — could also face cuts.
The story has broken against a wider backdrop of unease about Britain's strategic position, with one report noting recent remarks from the US president casting doubt on American backing for the UK over the Falkland Islands, and pointed warnings from Argentina's president and from Moscow over the UK's support for Ukraine. Accounts differ somewhat in emphasis: coverage focused on defence and military reaction dwells on the specifics of the cancelled Welsh exercise, the reaction of retired officers, and the comparison with historic spending squeezes, tracing the decision directly to the abandoned three per cent pledge. Coverage with a broader political lens instead foregrounds parliamentary pressure on the prime minister, the resignations that preceded the row, opposition funding proposals, and the international backdrop of the Falklands and Ukraine, framing the training pause primarily as the latest flashpoint in a wider debate about the adequacy of UK defence spending. The Ministry of Defence had not issued a public response to the reports at the time of writing.
Where outlets differ
One outlet frames the cuts largely through the military/veteran reaction (named retired officers criticising the decision, comparison to the 1973 fuel crisis, detail on the Wales exercise and the memo's terms) and traces the cause specifically to the abandonment of the three per cent GDP pledge tied to a named former defence secretary.
The other outlet situates the story more within the broader political row — parliamentary exchanges, the resignations of the defence secretary and armed forces minister, the opposition's alternative funding plan, and geopolitical context (Falklands remarks from the US and Argentina, and warnings from Russia) — while attributing the original disclosure of the training halt to a different newspaper's reporting.
There is a discrepancy in the reports over some figures and titles (for example, who holds which senior political and defence role, and the precise percentage benchmark cited for current/planned spending), which readers should treat with some caution given the underlying source material was inconsistent on these points.
One account gives a specific timeframe for the pause (until the end of the year), while the other frames it as open-ended, tied only to 'this financial year'.
More coverage