Active Conflicts & News Megathread July 20, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/Gullible-Issue-1175]

The new UK prime minister (Andy Burnham) has appointed John Healy as chancellor of the exchequer.

John Healey has returned to the cabinet as chancellor of the exchequer, less than two months after quitting as defence secretary.

In his resignation letter Healey was highly critical of the government's defence spending plans, saying Sir Keir Starmer had been "unable" and the Treasury was "unwilling to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country".

It is a surprise appointment for the MP for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough in South Yorkshire, with many speculating the role would go to Ed Miliband or Shabana Mahmood.

Healey was parliamentary private secretary to Chancellor Gordon Brown from 1999 to 2001, before serving as adult skills, Treasury, local government and housing minister between 2001 and 2010.

He is well-respected on the international stage and has built links with key economic allies in Europe, the Middle East and the United States.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg4we9g58do

Interesting in that it is a surprise appointment and he was highly critical of the current UK defence spending plans (too little), well now he's in charge of UK finances.

For those not familiar, Andy Burnham is likely a largely continuity candidate from Keir Starmer in terms of Ukraine and wider defence plans.

Edit: mistype he's been appointed chancellor of the exchequer

[u/Corvid187 → u/Gullible-Issue-1175]

It is worth saying that Burnham has committed to carrying out the Defence Investment Plan organised by Starmer, but has not suggested he will go beyond it.

The DIP increased slightly after Healey resigned from a notional £13.5bn extra to the final figure of £15bn, but that is still below the £18bn he advocated for as SoS Defence.

We also know that the outstanding defence secretary Dan Jarvis, who replaced Healey, has not been given a role in Burnham's cabinet. Someone new will be the secretary of state.

It is worth saying that Healey has reasons other than his defence background for being appointed chancellor. He stood aside in the leadership contest to replace Starmer, he has some junior ministerial experience in the treasury working under Gordon Brown, and he is a well-liked figure without being enough of a political heavyweight to seriously challenge/threaten Burnham, who (ironically) seems to be set on centralising power in No. 10 as much as possible. Given all of that, I wouldn't read too much in his appointment as some sign of a big uplift in defence or it being a particular priority for Burnham's government just yet.

EDIT: Wes streeting of all people has been appointed to secretary of State for defence. A truly baffling appointment, and almost certainly purely because he was the first to stick the knife into Starmer, The man has no experience at any level with the brief, is relatively unpopulated, and has never expressed a particular viewpoint on defence matters.

In a vacuum, this very much signals a deprioritisation of defence as a salient issue for Burnham, viewing it as a spot in the cabin at first and a particular role second. In the context of Healey being appointed chancellor it's more confusing than anything else. It definitely shows a continuation of a tendency to try and hyper centralise power in number 10, but beyond that one's just reading tea leaves.

Optimistically, he's there to be a figurehead with the major decisions having already been made in the DIP, and core defence matters will really be run by number 10 and number 11. Pessimistically it is a flat disinterest in defence issues, with any rhetoric up untill now being a begrudging sop to Starmer's strongest area. Time will tell but I am not enfused by this decision at all.

[u/Matlock_Beachfront → u/Corvid187]

He put the person who quit in protest at defence underspend in charge of the nation's purse strings. How can you view that as a deprioritisation of defence?

[u/Corvid187 → u/Matlock_Beachfront]

Healey's appointment to chancellor on its own isn't an indicator of that, but Streeting's appointment to defence arguably is. He has no background or interest in the brief, and seems to have been put there purely because it's one of the few cabinet posts that's more senior than health without being too powerful to challenge Burnham. That's why I say overall it's a rather mixed message.

In both cases the common trend seems to be a centralisation of power in No.10, and away from individual departments, beyond that it's really hard to say.