Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney-general, said Labor would only meet the spending target “when circumstances allow”.
Labour was accused of failing to keep Britain safe in a “dangerous world” after the party refused to support the government's increase in defense spending.
Shadow ministers refused to pledge 2.5% of GDP to be spent on defense by 2030, as Rishi Sunak had promised, instead saying they would have to make a decision after the general election.
Labour's position came under criticism on Wednesday from defense industry sources who warned it could create “uncertainty” and undermine industry confidence in investing.
Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, accused the opposition of having “no plans for a dangerous world” and Grant Shapps, the defense secretary, said Labour's position would lead to “delays, disruption and confusion”.
Johnny Mercer, the Veterans Affairs Secretary, said it showed Labor could not be trusted on defence.
He added: “Labour has again refused to support our plan to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. Instead, they want to spend years analyzing how the world is becoming increasingly dangerous, while refusing to take action to keep the British people safe.”
It comes after Mr Sunak urged other European countries to follow Britain's example and increase defense spending at a press conference with Olaf Scholz, Germany's chancellor, on Wednesday.
The Prime Minister and Mr Shapps are expected to argue that spending 2.5 per cent on defense should be a new NATO target at a summit in Washington this summer.< /p>
Since 2006, the target for members of the alliance has been 2 percent, but even now many countries of the alliance do not reach it – which is opposed by Donald Trump, who is again running for the presidency of the United States.
The Prime Minister said at his press conference – conference in Berlin, that European countries can no longer ask the US to fund security if they themselves are not “ready to make sacrifices.”
Mr Sunak said: “US presidents have always called for more defense spending in Europe. This is not new, and I think it is quite reasonable.
“We cannot expect the Americans to pay any price, to take on any burden, if we in Europe are not prepared to do these ourselves sacrifices and make those investments.
“That's exactly what we do. But it is important that we and Europe demonstrate that we are doing this to maintain the US commitment to NATO.”
Jeremy Hunt held talks with Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on Wednesday, telling him the UK will continue to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”.
The Chancellor insisted other European states have a “responsibility” for providing more military support after the UK pledged £500 million in new arms donations.
He said it would “increase pressure on Putin and help restore peace and prosperity to Europe”, adding: ” We are committed to playing our leading role.”
The defense spending announcement was welcomed by the US, saying it showed Britain was a “loyal ally”. it can be relied upon.
However, Mr Sunak faces questions about whether the defense boost is as “fully funded” as he has said. He said civil service cuts would partially cover the bond, but there were no details about what exactly the cuts would go towards.
At his press conference in Berlin, the Prime Minister refused to rule out further cuts to public spending if he wins re-election to pay for defense support, but pointed tax to the question of cuts was still under discussion this year.
He said: “We made a choice and I am not shying away from that choice. Any management is based on prioritization. I have decided to make defense a priority because I believe it is the right thing to do for our country.
“I am not going to write the next manifesto here and now, but what I am sure of is that what if you have a strong economic plan like we do, and that plan is working, we will stick to that plan and we can continue to increase defense spending.
“This is a fully funded plan. We have a very clear idea of how to reduce the number of civil servants, which has grown significantly over the last few years, and we can bring it back and use it to finance what I announced yesterday.
“And together so as to continue to invest in public services and cut taxes for the public.”
Labour's position is that it will increase defense spending, currently around 2.3 of GDP, to 2. 5 percent, when resources allow, but there are no specific dates yet. was given.
Asked whether the party would live up to the government's commitments “how and when” it comes to power, Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, told Sky News: “Not when we come to power, but when we can.” Therefore, when circumstances permit.
“We want to move to 2.5 percent. When we were last in power, the figure was 2.5 percent. But we need to get there, and we're not going to say we're going to do it by 2030, as the government has said, unless there's a sensible plan.”
John Healey, Labour's shadow defense secretary, said: “Everyone recognizes that defense spending must rise to cope with growing threats. The opposition does not have access to classified threat assessments or military advice, so if we are elected to government we will undertake a strategic defense review within the first year to deal with the threats we face, the capabilities we need, the state of the Armed Forces and the resources available when we open the books.”
Element of doubt
However, a defense industry source told The Telegraph: “The problem with building up the defense industry has always been uncertainty.”
“A good thing What was in [Rishi Sunak's] announcement on Tuesday was that it removed that element of doubt that defense spending would only increase “when circumstances allow”.
“And while it's good to see Labor committing to a 2.5 percent rate, the fact that they're still sticking to it means there's still a level of uncertainty about exactly when that will happen.”
Senior industry leaders have urged ministers to use the increased defense budget to support British companies rather than buying “off-the-shelf” equipment from allies such as the US.
Writing in The Telegraph, the heads of BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK and Rolls-Royce stressed that the UK can only remain a significant military player by making a “continuing commitment” to creating its own sovereign technology.
Pointing out on fighters such as the Typhoon and Tornado, as well as the next-generation Tempest fighter under development, they said: “We are one of the few countries that have developed sovereign air combat capabilities due to our long history of research and development in this sector.
“This vital national asset gives the UK a significant strategic advantage, ensuring that the UK can contribute to regional and global security, deter aggression, project our national authority and protect UK interests both at home and abroad.
“We are hearing arguments from some quarters that the UK government should move to buying more off-the-shelf military equipment from overseas.
“This completely ignores the UK's strategic need to maintain control over our own security. , which has never been more important than in today's complex geopolitical landscape.
“Without this sovereignty, the UK would become even more dependent on other countries, whose support cannot always be taken for granted.
It comes after Adm Sir Tony Radakin, the Chief of the Defense Staff, wrote in The Telegraph that some of the money should be considered for spending on advanced technologies such as long-range missile battalions for the British Army and fast attack ships for the British Army. Naval. He also suggested considering a fully unmanned carrier air wing, and whether the number of Royal Air Force drones should be increased from tens to thousands.
Meanwhile, it emerged that the US had secretly dispatched long-duration aircraft carriers. range ballistic missiles to Ukraine for the first time and that they have already been used on the battlefield.
The new missiles, long sought by the Ukrainian leadership, give Ukraine almost twice the effective range – up to 190 miles – compared to the medium-range version of the weapon range, which it received from the US in October last year.
Mr Biden approved delivery of the Army's long-range tactical missile system, known as ATACMS, in early March, and the US included a “significant” number of them in the $300 million aid package announced at the time.
Recent Comments