Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Britain is currently positioned on a “war footing,” a state of heightened readiness fueled by the shifting dynamics of global politics. Earlier in the year, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte urged European allies to increase defense spending, warning that failing to do so could result in dire consequences, including a need to flee to safer locales or become reliant on speaking Russian.
In this climate of anxiety, it is critical to seek a broader perspective. European leaders appear to be in a state of panic following the perceived retreat of American influence under former President Donald Trump, a trend that has been developing over time. Meanwhile, within the UK, Labour officials have hinted that the ongoing crisis in Ukraine could be leveraged by Keir Starmer as a pivotal moment, often referred to as a “Falklands moment,” to revitalize the party’s flagging public support—a move that raises concerns about political opportunism. This focus on military preparedness may inadvertently mask a more pressing risk: domestic unrest and the rise of far-right movements that could jeopardize democratic structures.
The call for increased military budgets across Europe, often set as arbitrary percentages of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), invites scrutiny. Announcements related to defense spending lack transparency regarding the intended use of these funds, leading to questions about their effectiveness. A more rational approach would prioritize addressing specific threats and allocating resources accordingly. Presently, a significant portion of Britain’s defense budget is allocated to the Trident nuclear program, which has demonstrated significant reliability issues, highlighted by failed tests.
Significant funds have been wasted on aircraft carriers criticized by former chief of the defense staff David Richards as “unaffordable vulnerable metal cans,” which are now increasingly outdated alongside the advent of drone warfare and improved anti-ship missile technology. The Ajax armored vehicle program, which consumed £5.5 billion, has faced delays and serious operational issues, resulting in soldiers experiencing nausea and debilitating conditions from vehicle vibrations.
To mitigate the risk of such extensive financial waste, it is vital that defense spending undergoes careful evaluation, ensuring it corresponds to tangible threats. While the Russian government clearly represents a persistent threat to Ukraine, and supporting Ukraine in its defense against aggression is justified, the notion that Russia poses a significant conventional military threat to Britain or beyond is increasingly viewed as misguided. After years of conflict, the Russian military has managed to control only a fraction of Ukraine’s territory, home to a diminished population. As recent as 2010, Ukraine embraced pro-Russian leadership, illustrating the complexities of regional sentiments.
The toll on Russia itself has been staggering, with heavy losses in military personnel contributing to a demographic crisis. Coupled with pre-existing challenges such as high mortality rates, low birth rates, and migration pressures, these factors are exacerbated by the demands of sustaining military operations. While the Russian economy has maintained a certain level of resilience, reporting a growth of 4.1% in 2024, inflation rates are concerningly high at 9.5%, with interest rates reaching a prohibitive 21%. Furthermore, Moscow’s military supplies are dwindling, relying increasingly on aging Soviet-era equipment. History has shown, as seen with the Russian revolutions of 1917, that a war-worn populace can become increasingly restless.
Comparatively, the Soviet Union represented a more formidable military adversary, undertaking only one significant invasion post-World War II, which resulted in a disastrous outcome in Afghanistan. The notion that the current Russian leadership would embark on expansive military campaigns across hostile populations in Europe appears increasingly far-fetched. While bolstering the defenses of vulnerable nations, such as those in the Baltic region, may be wise, the rationale for substantial increases in defense budgets across Western Europe is questionable.
That said, Russia, along with other nations and non-state actors, does pose alternative threats, particularly in the domain of cyber warfare. In light of this, governments ought to prioritize defense spending in these areas. Martin Shaw, a professor of international relations at Sussex University, emphasizes that the current defense establishment is ill-equipped to accurately assess what is truly required; consequently, a comprehensive review of defense spending is essential to identify possible savings that can be redirected towards genuine priorities.
A pressing concern is that the Labour government has drastically cut international aid budgets in favor of defense spending. While this may resonate positively with some voters, the consequences could be dire, leading to loss of lives. Research indicates that public sentiment shifts significantly when asked about specific humanitarian obligations, such as aid to those affected in Ukraine. Given Labour’s reluctance to impose higher taxes on the wealthy, future military expenditures are likely to be funded by further reductions in public services and social safety nets. Additionally, studies have shown that increased military spending can adversely affect economic growth in wealthier nations, with the Soviet Union’s collapse partly attributable to its excessive defense expenditures.
Starmer’s assertion that rising defense budgets will improve the UK’s struggling living standards is met with skepticism. Data from the Common Wealth think tank indicates that a significant portion of MoD expenditures is concentrated among a few large contractors, with nearly 40% of the £37.6 billion spent last year directed to just ten companies. Despite substantial public subsidies, the defense sector now employs a mere fraction of the British workforce, dropping from over 400,000 in the early 1980s to around 134,000 today.
The current climate in Europe has seen a notable rise in radical right-wing parties, propelled by austerity measures and stagnant living conditions. The rise of such populist figures, including the role of a far-right candidate in the United States, can be traced back to the economic stress faced by working-class voters. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) saw its electoral base double, reflecting public discontent stemming from the economic impacts of the Russian conflict. The steady ascent of far-right parties in Europe, particularly following the financial crisis, has resulted in such groups becoming the dominant political faction in many regions. By prioritizing military expenditures at the expense of social programs, these trends are likely to escalate, and Europe’s fixation on an abstract threat might signal its own downfall.
Source
www.theguardian.com