LONDON — The head of the U.K.’s armed forces has told members of parliament that cuts and delays to defense programs are being considered, despite Keir Starmer’s promise to prioritize national rearmament. 

On Monday, Richard Knighton, chief of the defense staff, acknowledged that Britain cannot deliver all the defense capabilities it needs within the current spending envelope. 

Speaking to the Commons defense committee, he said: “We can’t do everything we would want to do as quickly as we would want to do it within the context of the budget we set.”

Asked if this meant cuts to programs or pushing them back, Knighton said: “All of those things are options under consideration, but so is the level of ambition we might take and these are straightforward facts.”

The Ministry of Defence is currently locked in a battle with the Treasury over the Defense Investment Plan (DIP), which was originally meant to be published in the fall last year. 

The DIP is intended to build on the strategic defense review (SDR) and put hard numbers against the government’s plans before an uplift to defense spending from 2027.

The Times reported that military chiefs have warned Starmer of a £28 billion shortfall over the next four years, after POLITICO revealed growing fears of cuts to the U.K.’s security capabilities within defense circles. 

The army chief refused to confirm the figure cited by the Times, saying details of his meetings with the PM were classified. 

Quizzed about British support for Greenland following Donald Trump repeating his intention to take over the Danish territory, Knighton said he had not been involved in any plans to directly defend Greenland and that NATO continues to provide “an impeccable security guarantee” for its members.

He also addressed Starmer’s newly signed declaration of intent to station troops in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire with Russia.

Knighton said he was “confident” in Britain’s ability to meet this requirement despite the armed forces’ commitments elsewhere, but would not guarantee their safety. “There is no such thing as a zero risk in an operational environment,” he told the committee.