Keir Starmer just left an unexploded bomb under Andy Burnham’s desk – it’s a big problem

Andy Burnham is expected to become Britain’s next Prime Minister on Monday, but taking over the country’s top job may prove far more difficult than the smooth path that brought him to Downing Street. While his rise to power may have looked straightforward, he will immediately face major challenges, particularly when it comes to national defence and growing international tensions.

The new Prime Minister will inherit a difficult security situation at a time when Russia continues to pose an increasing threat across Europe. Many questions also remain about what Burnham’s defence strategy will look like and how he plans to strengthen Britain’s armed forces.

Although Burnham has spoken about moving more political power away from London, including his idea of creating a stronger “Number 10 in the North,” critics argue that such domestic reforms will do little to address the growing military threats facing the UK. Defence experts believe the government must focus on strengthening Britain’s armed forces, improving military readiness and ensuring the country is prepared for future conflicts.

One of Burnham’s biggest early problems will be finding an extra £4.7 billion for defence spending in his very first Budget. The funding gap has become one of the biggest issues awaiting the incoming government.

The shortfall follows the release of Sir Keir Starmer’s long-awaited Defence Investment Plan, which was finally unveiled after repeated delays. However, despite announcing ambitious plans to strengthen Britain’s military, the previous government did not fully explain how the extra spending would be paid for.

Opposition politicians have described the plan as a financial trap left behind for Burnham. Some have even compared it to an unexploded bomb that the new Prime Minister will now have to deal with.

Closing such a large funding gap is unlikely to be easy. It could require difficult decisions over government spending, and one option already being discussed is reducing the rapidly growing welfare budget in order to free up money for defence.

However, such a move would almost certainly prove controversial. Many Labour MPs are expected to oppose any cuts to welfare, placing Burnham in a difficult political position as he tries to balance party unity with growing national security concerns.

Burnham has also promised to support British businesses and manufacturing. That commitment will be welcomed by the UK’s defence industry, which has spent months waiting for certainty after repeated delays to defence investment plans.

Many companies involved in building military equipment say they now need firm decisions and long-term investment rather than more political promises. They argue that without clear funding, production, recruitment and future planning become increasingly difficult.

The Defence Secretary has repeatedly highlighted the importance of investing in modern military technology, including autonomous weapons systems and advanced drones. At the same time, military experts have warned that Britain should not abandon traditional equipment such as tanks, armoured vehicles and other crewed platforms.

They argue that modern warfare requires both advanced technology and conventional military strength, meaning the government must invest in both if Britain is to remain prepared for future conflicts.

Finding enough money to modernise the armed forces while maintaining existing military capabilities could become one of Burnham’s toughest tests during his time as Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, Britain is already changing the way its troops operate on NATO’s eastern border as the alliance responds to increasing pressure from Russia.

British forces stationed in Estonia are preparing for a significant change in strategy. Challenger 2 battle tanks will gradually be withdrawn from the country and replaced by highly advanced drone systems and mobile anti-armour units.

From April next year, the British military presence in Estonia will move from an Armoured Battlegroup to a Mobile Anti-Armour Force. At the same time, the number of British soldiers deployed there will increase from around 800 to approximately 1,200 personnel.

The decision follows lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, where drones have become one of the most important weapons on the battlefield. Modern drone technology has repeatedly destroyed heavily armoured vehicles, leading many military planners to rethink the role of tanks in future warfare.

Officials say planning for the change has been underway for several years, with greater mobility and faster response times being among the main reasons behind the new approach.

However, defence leaders insist that tanks will continue to play an important role. The Challenger 2 fleet is not being retired, and many of the vehicles will be assigned to future operations. In addition, 148 tanks are currently being upgraded to the more advanced Challenger 3 standard, ensuring they remain a key part of Britain’s military capability.

Elsewhere, tensions have once again flared between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

The latest dispute began after members of Argentina’s national football team celebrated their World Cup semi-final victory over England by displaying a banner reading “Las Malvinas son Argentinas,” meaning “The Falkland Islands are Argentinian.”

Only hours later, the Argentine government accused a Royal Navy patrol ship of making an illegal journey and carrying out a military incursion into its waters.

The British government strongly rejected those claims.

Downing Street said Argentina had been informed in advance that HMS Medway would pass through the area as part of a routine voyage to Chile. The ship was delivering essential supplies to the British Antarctic Survey’s research facilities in Antarctica.

Officials pointed out that the journey had taken place between July 5 and July 8, more than a week before Argentina publicly raised objections.

The timing of the complaint has led many observers to believe the accusations were politically motivated and linked to heightened nationalist feelings following Argentina’s football victory.

British officials have dismissed the claims as baseless, insisting HMS Medway followed normal procedures throughout the voyage. They also stressed that the Royal Navy will continue carrying out routine operations in support of Britain’s overseas territories and international commitments.

The disagreement has once again highlighted the long-running dispute over the Falkland Islands, although the UK government maintains there has been no change to Britain’s position on the sovereignty of the islands and has described Argentina’s latest accusations as little more than political theatre.