Britain faces an increasingly dangerous world, China is expanding its military power, Russia remains a threat to Europe and the Indo-Pacific is becoming one of the great strategic battlegrounds of this century.
So what is Labour doing?
Trying to surrender British sovereign territory containing one of the most strategically important military bases on Earth, while delaying a final decision on how many of Britain's next generation of attack submarines it will actually build.
It is an extraordinary combination.
According to reporting by The Telegraph, ministers will not confirm the precise number of Britain's new SSN-AUKUS attack submarines until 2028, despite the Government previously announcing plans for “up to 12”.
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed in Parliament that the programme remains in its design phase and that the final number of submarines is expected to be decided before that phase concludes in 2028. The Government insists the delay will not affect its plans to establish the industrial capacity to produce a submarine every 18 months from the mid-2030s.
The boats are nuclear-powered but conventionally armed and will eventually replace Britain's Astute-class attack submarines. The Government says steel for the first SSN-AUKUS boat is due to be cut in 2027, with the first British submarine intended to enter service in the 2030s.
But critics say that “up to 12” at some stage in the future is not the same thing as an order for 12 now.
Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge has ridiculed the Government's position, comparing it to saying he would like to buy “up to 12 Ferraris” without having the money to pay for them.
The controversy comes as Labour continues attempting to revive its deeply contentious Chagos deal, under which sovereignty over the archipelago would pass to Mauritius while Britain leases back Diego Garcia.
Diego Garcia is no insignificant speck in the Indian Ocean. It is a strategically critical joint UK-US military facility, providing Britain and America with an extraordinary military foothold across the Indo-Pacific, Middle East and surrounding region. Even the Government describes it as one of Britain's most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership.
Yet Labour's answer is to surrender sovereignty and pay to retain access.
The Great British PAC has fought the Chagos surrender from the beginning, supporting legal action brought by Chagossians, helping fund the battle through the courts and campaigning against a deal we believe damages British sovereignty, strategic security and the rights of the Chagossian people.
Now the submarine row raises an even bigger question about the direction of British defence policy.
China has been rapidly expanding its military and naval capabilities and regards the Indo-Pacific as an arena of enormous strategic importance. Britain, by contrast, is debating surrendering sovereignty over a crucial Indian Ocean military position while postponing a final decision on the size of its future attack-submarine fleet.
Of course Labour ministers will try and reject any suggestion that their policy benefits Beijing. And they will say there is no evidence that Labour is acting on China's behalf.
But that does not mean the question of strategic consequences should not be asked.
If British policy results in Britain surrendering sovereign territory, weakening its strategic leverage in the Indian Ocean and hesitating over the future strength of the Royal Navy, who benefits from a weaker Britain?
It certainly isn't the British people.
Claire Bullivant: “Who exactly is Labour fighting for?”
Claire Bullivant, CEO of the Great British PAC, said:
“Who exactly is this Labour Government fighting for? Because increasingly it doesn't look like the British people.
At a time when China is building, expanding and projecting its power across the globe, Britain should be doing precisely the same thing: strengthening our Navy, protecting our territory and defending every strategic advantage we possess.
Instead, Labour wants to give away the Chagos Islands, surrender British sovereignty over Diego Garcia and then pay to lease back the military base we already control. And now, astonishingly, it cannot even tell us how many of the next generation of attack submarines Britain is actually going to build until 2028.
You couldn't make it up. Give away the base, hesitate over the submarines, send the bill to the British taxpayer and call it national security.
Mauritius has significant economic links with China, and China is pouring resources into expanding its naval power. So it is perfectly legitimate to ask: why does Labour keep making decisions that appear to leave Britain strategically weaker while our competitors become stronger? Is Labour working for China? I don't believe anyone can responsibly claim that without evidence. But ministers should explain why so many of their decisions seem to produce outcomes Beijing is hardly likely to lose sleep over.
The job of a British Government is gloriously simple: put Britain first. Defend our territory. Strengthen our Armed Forces. Protect our people. And when somebody wants a strategically priceless British asset, the answer should not be, ‘How much would you like us to pay you to take it?’
The Great British PAC will keep fighting this Chagos surrender every inch of the way. We have fought it in Parliament, backed the Chagossians fighting through the courts and helped drag this disastrous deal into the light. We are not stopping now.
Diego Garcia matters. Our submarines matter. British sovereignty matters. And Britain's security is far too important to be bartered away by a Government seemingly more comfortable managing our decline than defending our interests.
Britain needs more ships, more submarines, stronger Armed Forces and rather more backbone.
We will keep fighting until Labour finally understands a very simple principle: British territory is not theirs to give away.”
The battle over Chagos is not over.
The Government argues that the Chagos agreement protects the long-term operation of Diego Garcia and says Britain would retain operational control of the base. Ministers have repeatedly defended the agreement on national-security grounds.
Critics remain unconvinced.
The Great British PAC's campaign will continue, alongside the legal challenge being pursued by Chagossians who say their voices were ignored when the future of their homeland was negotiated.
And the submarine controversy adds another front to a much larger argument.
This is no longer simply about one group of islands or one procurement programme.
It is about what kind of country Britain intends to be.
A country that protects its strategic assets, invests in the military power necessary to defend them and faces an increasingly dangerous world with confidence?
Or one that gives away the base, delays the boats and hopes nobody notices?
The Great British PAC knows which side it is on.
Britain's.