Yes, the reaction to things across the pond is to pay for more weapons and bombs by cutting support for the world’s poorest people.
More money for weapons manufacturers = more suffering and displaced people = more refugees to blame for all our woes.
And the cycle continues.
Do I agree with it? No.
But do I think you’re underrating the very real menace there is to Europe? Yes.
Sometimes spending on military prevents a bigger humanitarian disaster. I think this is one of those times. (More military spending = less suffering and displaced people)
With a very real possibility of Russia now gaining land, with no consequence, I think it’s likely Russia uses a ceasefire agreement to pause, build up strength and go again. It could be Ukraine it could be half a dozen other countries that were formerly part of USSR. I can’t see them switching from a war economy to a peace one.
At this time UK needs to show strength given void US is leaving behind. As a deterrent to Russia taking that risk. Russia and now the US are going to prey on the weak. Spending on military reduces US leverage and threats. It enables UK to do some good protecting other nations.
I see it as spending on peacekeeping and deterrent to prevent war rather than the intent to go to war.
Spending on development prevents humanitarian disasters, and war. Even if what you’re saying is true there are other ways to raise money (wealth tax anyone?)
It’s blows my mind that the West has been conditioned to think like this, when the opposite is so blatantly obvious
Lockheed Martin and BAE will be delighted with more cash to produce their peaceful bombs
No one here is denying that spending on development is a worthwhile thing (and in light of the US pulling out of its commitments, it’s another big blow that the UK is going to cut back) but it is also fair to acknowledge that the threat of war, or actual conflict can also be a driver of humanitarian crises and so spending on things that may reduce the threat of conflict can also contribute positively.
There are other ways to raise money - but I’m not so sure those other options are either palatable or straightforward right now. For example, a wealth tax may be very complex to legislate for and thus take time to introduce when the government needs the money fairly quickly.
Agree with the time pressure issue but ultimately some serious wealth tax is needed. We serioisly need to try and rebalance things in the uk.
My reflex position is never going to be to increase military spending. I’m a classic CND, white poppy wearing liberal.
But even I have to acknowledge that these are really difficult times, and we might be in the same situation we were in during the thirties, when people like me would have been arguing for negotiating with Hitler.
So I’m not going to rush to judgement. We don’t know what the next five years holds.
Except we’re now doing it to placate the Hitler in America
What? We’re clearly investing in defence because we increasingly can’t rely on America to act as a global peacemaker.
Rushing it through has nothing to do with Starmer’s visit to the White House?
Possibly, but I think it has substantially more to do with the lunatic invading Europe, and the lunatic egging him on.
It will be interesting to see where the money is spent. What is being discussed in Germany at the moment is that the country cannot trust the US as an arms supplier.
There is an opportunity for European nations to cluster their arms industries so that they support rather than compete with each other. From a UK perspective, they need to be concentrating on a defensive force, not trying to be some sort of imperial power.
Excellent suggestion but we know who wont agree to it.
I didn’t even realise that was going on. I was focused more on the discussion in Germany and elsewhere in Europe about having to increase defence spending simply because NATO is effectively dead.
Possibly, but the spending commitment was from the manifesto, what hadnt been made public was how it was to be funded and the timescale.
The government has been under growing pressure on the last two points since last summer.
That of course has been made worse by the actions (and words of the US), not only in respect of Ukraine, NATO and national security more generally but also on the UKs finances with increased borrowing costs and the likelihood of tariffs being imposed on British goods and services.
On that note, from the Times:
https://x.com/larisamlbrown/status/1894653155570221433
You need to note, however, that when buying armaments, particularly advanced armaments, due to globalisation and massive downscaling of own arms industry post-Cold War, that is impossible not to buy some US bits and bobs. So the question is more of focus. To focus on own industry, build that up and focus on buying European as in opposed to American. Even I, who want to Europe to re-arm yesterday because I deeply suspect we are fucked otherwise, realise that some bits and bobs, some weapons, must be american; at least in part.
I agree with your premise. But I think the European countries need to improve/increase coordination among themselves more than they need to increase their individual defense spending.
Given the current circumstances, I wouldn’t have issues with the UK investing in a British arms factory. However, I’d have massive problems if that money went to Lockheed Martin. If there is one thing to be avoided from now on, is to feed the US in exchange of their arms. Remember, they aren’t Europe’s ally anymore, and thus can’t be trusted.
Same here, athough on reflection, I’m already one step further down the line. Europe simply can’t keep waiting before re-organizing its defence - with European armament. It’s not simple, and will cost a lot, but at least, it will mean that new English and European jobs will be created in that industry.
However, don’t buy anything US-made anymore please. It would be lost money for your country and also for Europe.
Western European forces are well coordinated when it comes to communication and operating together.
Command structures might be a problem I really couldn’t say but from what you have said nor do you.
What needs to happen for greater coordination is a rationalisation of weapons used. It would be advantageous if these weapons are developped, designed, and produced in Europe and common within European forces. This would help logistics as spare parts would bé common between forces.
