UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Keir Starmer has announced that Britain will “fight for peace in Europe” with a generational increase in defence spending paid for by slashing the foreign aid budget.

The move, just two days before the prime minister is due to meet Donald Trump, raised immediate concerns that he was pandering to the US president, and fury from aid groups that say it could cost lives in countries that rely on UK support.

In a surprise announcement, Starmer announced the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, with the budget rising to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 – three years earlier than planned – and an ambition to reach 3%.
Click to expand...

A few observations:

This is a relatively minor increase to be sure, but the abbreviated timescale for that increase brings it within the purview of the current government, requiring immediate budgetary trade-offs. Anyone can announce vague ambitions to be realised under some future government and such talk without action is a regular feature of Anglosphere governance. This is different.

Again acknowledging the relatively minor nature of this increase and its prospective returns, it is nonetheless the first concrete modification to defence planning from a European government that I have read about. If other European governments have indeed announced concrete measures in response to Trump's recent bloviations, I'd love to read about them. In any case, that the UK appears to be leading in this regard fits with its record as being amongst the least pathetic of European governments.

Lastly, despite Starmer's attempt to frame this as a consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, this is clearly a direct consequence of Donald Trump's recent words and actions, which validates the basic American complaint that Europe has been "mooching" off Washington's security guarantees for generations now. I've never had a great deal of sympathy for American whining in this regard, because it is the inevitable consequence of the hegemony that Washington so dearly wishes to preserve (conversely, a more militarised Europe is a more independent and less pliant Europe), but it is nonetheless true in narrow terms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top