No one can say we weren’t warned. As early as 1971 America was warning that it could reduce its defence commitment to Europe, when the Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield proposed halving the number of US troops stationed on the continent. The Senate defeated that particular resolution, but the sentiment never went away. In 2016, Barack Obama lambasted European countries as ‘free-riders’ complacently sheltering under America’s security umbrella and throughout his first term Donald Trump was crystal clear that other Nato members needed to drastically increase their defence budgets. So when JD Vance put the message in blunter terms at the Munich Security Conference last week, no one should have been surprised. It was one of the longest telegraphed punches in history.
Whether the message has fully sunk in yet is still up for debate. Keir Starmer’s offer to send British peacekeeping troops to Ukraine may sound like a welcome signal of intent, until you realise that our armed forces are so depleted that we’d almost certainly need to divert the brigade we’ve already promised to the Estonians. While the Russian army has been worn down by years of attritional combat in Ukraine, ours has been denuded by decades of under-investment and poor planning. We are far from the only European power at fault. Despite Nato’s target for each member state to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence, France didn’t meet it once during the entire 2010s. Even now, despite President Macron’s more hawkish rhetoric of late, the country spends just 2.1 per cent. In Germany, the percentage is even lower.
Ever since the second world war, the US has subsidised Europe’s security, whilst watching us spend the dividends on increasingly bloated welfare states. For too long, Brits have lampooned America’s private healthcare system without fully appreciating that US taxpayers have effectively been underwriting our own National Health Service. The yanks will pay for the guns, so let’s spend more on butter. It’s how we’ve ended up with a situation in which the number of people claiming universal credit is 35 times the number serving as military personnel. Across the continent, the picture is the same. While France has more than halved its defence budget since the 1960s, its pensions bill has ballooned. The Italians, Belgians and Spanish have all run up debts of more than 100 per cent of GDP while simultaneously slashing their military spending. Even Poland, which has massively increased its defence budget in recent years, still spends four times as much on social welfare.
The number of people claiming universal credit is 35 times the number serving as military personnel
Opinion polls in the UK show broad public support for increased defence spending, but how many voters fully understand what such a commitment entails? Research by the Royal United Services Institute in 2022 suggested increasing defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 would require £157 billion worth of additional spending over eight years. For context, the amount the government is forecast to save through its controversial changes to winter fuel payments is just £1.3 billion in 2024-25. Changing inheritance tax rules for farmers saves even less, at around £520 million a year. If we are serious about spending more on defence, our leaders need to be honest with voters about the sacrifices it will require. The triple lock for state pensions? Unaffordable. The disability benefits bill? Unsustainable. Real-terms cuts to the NHS? Unavoidable.
Politicians pay lip service to the notion that the government’s first duty is the defence of the realm. In reality many voters have come to believe something else: that, first and foremost, the state exists to supplement or subsidise their lifestyles through public services and entitlements. With America withdrawing from its post-war role in Europe and the threat of Russian aggression only likely to increase, we must get real about the new reality. Our national debt is roughly the same size as our economy. We are spending over £100 billion a year on debt interest alone. Expanding our armed forces and properly investing in our national security is a necessity. But so is a full and frank conversation about the trade-offs it will require.
