Tag Archives: Defence spending

Aid, Britain, Defence, Economic, Government, Politics

Defence spending is lacklustre. Structural reforms are needed.

DEFENCE SPENDING

Intro: Why do we still send millions to China when we desperately need that money to defend ourselves against countries like… China?

WHEREVER you look, Britain’s adversaries are on the offensive. Russian hegemony and aggression shows no sign of abating. China’s military jets breach Taiwan’s airspace almost on a daily basis, and with its unprecedented defence spending, Beijing’s ambitions evidently stretch further. Iran’s proxies attack British ships in the Red Sea while Tehran is on the verge of gaining nuclear weapon capability. The security threats we face are the greatest in a generation.

In geopolitics, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. And the UK, hands meekly by its side, is yet to muster any credible response. Despite a recent increase in spending, our Armed Forces are still reeling from 30 years of cuts and disastrous unwinnable wars that have steadily eroded our conventional capability. We are shockingly under-prepared for this more contested world.

At the outbreak of the Falkland War in 1982, the Royal Navy had 43 frigates and 12 destroyers. It now has 13 and six respectively.

Russia regularly deploys spy ships to tamper with our undersea cables, yet neither of the two specialist ships needed to protect them have materialised, despite being announced in 2021.

The British Army has shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era. Of serious concern, there is a £17billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence’s ten-year procurement plan. By some estimates, if Russia invaded a NATO member – a very real and distinct possibility – our stockpile of ammunition would last just eight days.

Most scandalously, the foundations of our defence, our Trident nuclear deterrent, has been appallingly neglected. Just two of the four submarines that deliver our continuous at sea deterrent are functional. They are so stretched that our Vanguard submarines are being sent on longer deployments than ever before. Submariners now have to spend five months continuously at sea – three months more than in the past. The next generation of Dreadnought submarines set to replace our old and creaking fleet is well behind schedule.

The dangerous and humiliating collapse of our nuclear deterrent is a catastrophe waiting to happen unless we urgently grip this crisis. A reckoning is inescapable.

The cost of sustaining Trident is cannibalising the rest of the UK military budget. We have no choice but to increase defence spending to three per cent of GDP to deliver the uplift we need to defend ourselves. If Greece and Poland can do it, why is it beyond the UK’s reach? Most in Parliament agree; that’s the straightforward part.

What’s much harder to explain is how to fund this increase when money is tight. Hard trade-offs will need to follow.

Strong defence rests upon a strong economy that can fund military upgrades. To provide the type of defence we need the UK will need to relentlessly pursue pro-growth, supply-side reforms. This will include liberalising planning to build more affordable homes, roads and factories, reforming welfare to get abled bodied people back into work, and cutting regulation that stifles entrepreneurs and small firms.

We cannot continue shovelling more money into increasingly bloated public services. The UK must drive through radical reforms. The security of a nation depends on having a strong military capability.

Strong economic growth will not appear overnight. We cannot wait until tomorrow to tackle today’s crisis. The choices are stark: either taxes are raised hitting an already squeezed middle class, borrow more upon the trillions we already have as public debt, or divert spending from elsewhere.

We mustn’t add to the national debt with interest payments at already astronomical levels, nor increase taxes when the tax burden is at an unacceptable high. Neither should we divert existing spending on the NHS or policing.

Instead, we should cut the foreign aid budget, and redirect that money to defence. While the aid budget does provide vital resources for alleviating extreme poverty that we should continue to support, a significant chunk of our “development” spend is incoherent, wasteful, and not necessary. It’s beyond ludicrous that we send hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear powers China, India, and Pakistan.

Almost a third of our foreign aid budget goes on the ballooning costs of supporting asylum-seekers in the UK. If we ended the abuse of the system by economic migrants and closed the farcical asylum hotels, billions of pounds could be freed.

Another third goes to multinational organisations such as the UN and World Bank. An estimated 15 per cent of that aid is spent on managing humanitarian crises, the rest we have little control over.

Only ten per cent of the total expended by the Foreign Office on aid goes specifically and directly to deal with humanitarian emergencies. Other uses of taxpayers’ money include nebulous spending on “open societies” and “research and technology”.

Halving the aid budget would free about £7billion a year and immediately push defence spending above 2.5 per cent of GDP. When growth returns, or a crisis unfolds, we could make carefully targeted increases in overseas aid spending.

In a world of difficult choices, we should view our contribution to global peace and security as primarily through hard power and free trade. After all, the expansion of global commerce has been the biggest alleviator of extreme poverty.

There’s an argument, too, that we should also bring back “patriot bonds” which enabled citizens to invest in their security during the World Wars. We should stop guilting City investors out of putting money into our defence industry through warped environmental, social, and governance regulations. Instead, they should be encouraged to support British manufacturing jobs, and our military.

We need to continue reforming our defence procurement systems to ensure taxpayers’ money goes much further and bring an end to the indignity of the MoD having to beg the Treasury for money every year. Nonetheless, billions could be saved in procurement efficiencies if proper structural reform was carried out.

In the words of Churchill, we appear “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift”. If we continue to dodge the difficult political decisions that need to be made, they will only come back as greater crises in the future.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Politics, Society

Defence is our first priority

BRITAIN

OUR political leaders are always gushing when reverting to how they feel about British troops. Recently, the prime minister said: “In a dangerous world, I’ve seen how you’re working around the clock for the good of us all.”

So much for the gratitude of politicians. While our leaders are quick to become dewy-eyed over the selfless dedication and bravery of our servicemen and women, they are depressingly reluctant to match their words with deeds.

Even Conservative governments – who should know better – have run down the Armed Forces they are so ready to send into battle or on other perilous deployments.

Defence budgets have been plundered to prop up unsustainable levels of funding elsewhere, most strikingly for health.

Those elected to govern make choices, of course. But the choices made are coming back to haunt Britain.

The threats facing us are far more unpredictable and serious than even during the Cold War. Yet the British Army is so short of soldiers, it can’t even field a single 10,000-strong division. The Royal Navy has been reduced to little more than a coastal force.

To make matters worse, the House of Commons’ spending watchdog says Defence faces a £29billion funding black hole, which means further vital equipment could be axed.

With war raging violently in Europe and authoritarian regimes on the rise, it is simply astonishing that not a bean was conjured up in last week’s Spring Budget. Our threadbare defences urgently require to be upgraded. Our political masters are short-sighted and have made a dangerous mistake.

Former defence secretaries, top brass, and war heroes are all calling for increases to Ministry of Defence funding from 2.3 to 4 per cent of GDP within a decade.

With the Budget gone, the perfect time to announce a surge in defence funding would be NATO’s 75th anniversary summit in July.

On the campaign trail in America, Donald Trump has said he would let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to pact members who failed to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence. His comments may have been puerile for many, but it is hard not to have a grain of sympathy with his sentiments.

For far too long, some European countries have skimped on security, opting instead to ride-off-the-back of America’s military might.  

By pledging to bump up our military budget to realistic operational levels, Britain can show real leadership.

If we are to get serious about defence spending, the MoD’s notorious procurement operation requires radically overhauled and reformed. The department has long set the Whitehall benchmark for incompetence and serial mismanagement of its budget. Taxpayers’ money has been squandered by the billions.

And while we need more troops, battlefield tanks, armoured vehicles, weaponry, and fighter jets, modern warfare involves cyber conflict, the use of unmanned aircraft, drones, and computer-controlled battlefleets. There needs to be proper provision for all of these things.

With a general election looming, Rishi Sunak fears losing votes by slashing other departmental budgets. But none of the other Government’s obligations is more crucial than the defence of the realm. If our security is compromised, all other areas of life are endangered. Only through military strength will we deter our enemies.

Time and again, British Forces have proved their incalculable worth to this country. The very least we can do in return is give them the resources and tools they need to do their job and keep us safe.

Standard
Arts, Britain, Defence, Government, History, Politics, Russia, Society, United Nations, United States

Politicians are comparing Putin to Hitler

BRITAIN

Intro: Putin’s totalitarian regime and its war in Ukraine is synonymous with Hitler and Nazi Germany. As Churchill urged in the 1930s, that’s why we need to spend much more on defence. It’s woefully inadequate

IN May 1953, Sir Winston Churchill told a Coronation lunch being held in Westminster Hall, “Study history. Study history . . . In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.” One of the reasons Churchill was an historian himself was because he profoundly believed that a primary purpose for studying the past was to inform and encourage action in the present.

What are we to make then of Foreign Secretary David Cameron’s recent reference to history – his powerful speech to the United Nations in which he equated Russia’s actions towards Ukraine with the way that Hitler and the Nazis behaved in the 1930s?

Lord Cameron’s speech was precipitated after the Russian ambassador tried to accuse Volodymyr Zelensky of being a Nazi. The Foreign Secretary responded by saying: “The only people behaving like Nazis are Putin and his cronies who thought they could invade a country, take its territory, and ultimately the world would look away.”

There are serious political consequences that follow upon equating Putin to Hitler, and one of them is that you need to put your money where your mouth is. You cannot make such a comparison, and then not spend the necessary money to counter the threat that you have just articulated in front of the whole world.

You cannot act as Churchill did before the Second World War, which was to warn the world of the impending threat, but not then do what Churchill did, which was to call for largescale rearmament to deal with it.

There are absolutely no signs that the UK Government is prepared to do this. In last week’s spring Budget, the Chancellor made no commitment to spending more on defence.

Britain currently pays just 2 per cent of her national income on defence, and that figure can be reached only by adding the costs of such indirect defence expenditures like widows’ pensions and the intelligence services. Strip out the nuclear deterrent costs and Britain pays the equivalent of 1.75% of GDP on defence.

At a time when we are witnessing the worst war in Europe since 1945, the British Army itself cannot even fill its already-depleted ranks, the RAF is mothballing its fighter squadrons, and the Royal Navy can barely put a flotilla together to protect shipping in the Red Sea, while its recent Trident missile test was an embarrassing national failure.

Meanwhile, Moscow is threatening to put nuclear weapons into space.

In the 1930s, Churchill articulated the pressing need for boosting spending on all three services. That was pivotal in deterring the Nazis if at all possible, or to defeat them if not. Churchill started warning of the dangers the Nazis posed within weeks of Hitler becoming Chancellor, telling the House of Commons on April 13, 1933, that, “As Germany acquires full military equality with her neighbours… while she is in the temper which we have unhappily seen, so surely should we see ourselves within a measurable distance of the renewal of European war.”

By November of that year, Churchill was speaking of “the obvious fear which holds all the nations who are neighbours of Germany”. This also has modern parallels with the way that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland view Putin’s Russia. In a 2021 essay written before the full-scale invasion in which Putin laid claim to Ukraine being Russian territory, he mentioned Lithuania in a similar vein no fewer than 17 times.

Yet the British Army is in danger of becoming merely “a domestically-centred land force” with no capacity for projecting force overseas to defend our allies. That was a view expressed in a leaked letter from the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders. There is no hyperbole in what he writes.

By early 1934, Churchill was saying the RAF needed far more fighter and bomber aircraft. Following the declaration of war by Germany, Churchill warned: “Within the next few hours the crash of bombs exploding in London and cataracts of masonry and fire and smoke will apprise us of any inadequacy which has been permitted in our aerial defences.” The nation was still mourning the Great War and refused to listen, fearing that rearming might provoke another, or by his own government which thought him an opportunistic warmonger.

Churchill recognised that far from provoking war, heavy Western rearmament might instead deter the man whom David Cameron has now compared to Putin. “I could not see how you could prevent war better,” Churchill said in July 1934, “than by confronting an aggressor with the prospect of such a vast concentration of force, moral and material, that even the most reckless, even the most infuriated leader would not attempt to challenge those great forces.” Instead, however, public apathy won the day, and British rearmament was postponed until it was almost too late.

“Moral and material.” Churchill understood that the demoralisation of the West, in the sense that democracies such as Britain and France were weak and divided, influenced the decision-making of the totalitarians in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Similarly, moral vigour is desperately needed on the part of the United States, the G7, NATO, and Britian today in order to deter countries such as Russia, China, and Iran from ripping up the rules-based international order.

No message would be stronger, especially in the aftermath of the suspicious death in custody of Alexei Navalny, than if the West were to sequester the $300billion of Russia’s frozen assets presently being held in Brussels and give it to Ukraine for its defence and reconstruction.

That would be the Churchillian approach. But does our present Government have the anti-appeasing moral vigour to do it?

Fervently, we should all hope so. In stark truth, the Government needs to do far more than just this. It must increase defence spending to a minimum of 3.5 per cent of GDP. The Budget would have been an ideal moment to show it plans to do so, but – as we have seen – the Treasury continues to sit on its hands.

It’s not as if an increase to 3.5 per cent would be an earth-shattering break with custom and practice. Historically, defence spending was around 5.5 per cent of GDP during much of the 1970s and reached 6 per cent during the Falklands War in 1982.

Neville Chamberlain’s government finally woke up to the Nazi threat, and it was able to build the Hurricanes and Spitfires that saved Britain. The year of peace bought by the humiliating Munich Agreement was used by the Nazis to build much more weaponry and train many more soldiers than Britain, but nonetheless British air defences were in a much better state in 1940 than in 1938.

Modern defence industries require far longer research and development lead times today than in the 1930s, so if rearmament is to take place using new technologies, there can be no time to waste. Logistically, we currently have only enough 155mm shells – the standard type – in this country for one week of fighting at the rate experienced in Ukraine today. That’s how limited we are.

Churchill would be sickened by the brinkmanship being practised by Britain in the presence of a clearly growing global threat to democracy by evil totalitarian and murderous regimes.

Aldous Huxley, the English writer and philosopher, once wrote: “That men do not learn the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach us.” Lord Cameron may have correctly used the Second World War as the analogy by which to judge our present dangers, but where is the clear counterpart to go with that, namely large-scale rearmament?  

Back in the 1930s, Churchill wrote in his war memoirs how his exhortations were ignored by fellow parliamentarians. “Although the House listened to me with close attention,” he said, “I felt a sensation of despair. To be so entirely convinced and vindicated in a matter of life and death to one’s country, and not to be able to make Parliament and the nation heed the warning, or bow to the proof by taking action, was an experience most painful.”

Are we to undergo something similar now?

Standard