Who and what are we defending in the UK? It's a question in need of an answer. As politicians and politicians demand more defence spending, whose rights are we defending, and so who should pick up the bill?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
What are we defending?
This is a question which I raised in a radio discussion I took part in with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 Live. The other participant was Anthony King, a professor at the University of Exeter, and actually, the exchange, including the contributions made by three people who phoned in, were all really good. A half hour radio programme which comes together like that is very rare in my experience because too often radio phone-ins don't work.
But I raised this particular question. If we are going to increase defence spending in the UK, and that is the demand that Donald Trump is making of us - that is the promise that Labour has made for us - and we just don't know by how far that sum is going to go up - what is it that we are defending, for whose benefit, and how does that influence the decisions that we're going to make about who is going to pay for this, and why?
Now, let's be clear. We are clearly under threat at present. The world is a more dangerous place because of the election of Donald Trump to the US White House than it has been, in my opinion, for quite a long time because inevitably, we are going to see a couple of major world leaders - Xi in China and Putin in Russia - who are going to be emboldened by the presence of Trump, who is saying he is going to walk away from the world stage and leave Europe or wherever else to defend themselves, and good luck Taiwan.
So, we are definitely in a different world, a world where, if we have relied on US support, we can no longer do so. A certainty has disappeared, and that is creating a crisis, not least because there is, of course, an ongoing war in Ukraine, the outcome from which we cannot know, and the consequence of any solution to which is uncertain because we do not know whether, if Putin thinks he's won territory there - which it now seems inevitable he will - he will want to go on and do the same in the Balkan* states, for example, and maybe in Finland, or even Poland. So, these questions are all on the agenda again.
The likelihood of the UK being in the front line is, let's be clear, low. There isn't an obvious capacity for Russia to invade the UK. But it does have a capacity to seriously threaten the UK, nonetheless.
Nuclear weapons still do exist, although I do genuinely believe that most world leaders would never want to use them, but they don't need to in a world where there are drones, which are now capable of flying very long distances with standard weapons, but which are nonetheless deeply lethal, but even more so in a world where cyber warfare is so easy to simply bring the UK down by attacking IT systems, which would be a fairly straightforward exercise. We have seen successful cyber-attacks on the NHS, for example, and on businesses, too, and these could expand. So, there is a need for better defence, particularly if the US was a party to some of the defence systems on those issues that we were previously involved with.
But the question that I also tried to ask during this phone in discussion was, “What are the consequences of spending more on defence?” Because it's not just a matter of money. We do know that governments can always find the money for defence.
We do know, in practice, that the government can always find the money for anything because, as we also know, modern monetary theory makes clear that any government can, if authorised to do so, spend money created by its central bank to fulfil its objectives. It may create inflation as a consequence if it does not appropriately manage the actual, real, physical resources within the economy, but it can always find the money.
And when it comes to defence, there never seems to be any limit to the amount that is available, particularly in times of stress, which is what we're living through. So, money is actually not the point of debate on defence at present. Money. is a sideshow which follows from the real consequences of increasing the defence expenditure in this country.
And what is the real consequence of increasing that defence expenditure? It means the productive capacity is shifted from other things that people want towards defence, so people who are currently working as teachers or baristas or in the BBC or making videos will instead be marching around army squares, learning how to use a rifle and getting ready to be in the infantry front line. They might also be learning how to fly RAF jets or go to sea or whatever else it might be.
My point is that if we're going to increase defence spending significantly, more people are going to be in the armed forces. They are, therefore, not going to be doing something else. There is a real, physical, tangible, actual cost to this reallocation of resources, just as there will be if we want to increase the amount of armaments that we produce.
And it is an acknowledged fact, I think, amongst almost all commentators, that we have remarkably small quantities of physical armaments available to us in the UK. But what manufacturing capacity do we give up as a result?
Are we going to reduce the number of cars on the road, for example? Are we going to change the use of some of those highly sophisticated factories used for that purpose to make, well, tanks, small armoured vehicles, parts of planes, you name it, whatever they might be able to do with their robots, instead of putting cars that we probably don't really need to replace as often as we do down production lines?
But there's another real consequence of that decision to reallocate resources, and we have to go back and look at what happened in the Second World War. And in that Second World War, the consequence of armaments was that consumption was crushed. It had to be because otherwise, we could not quite simply have beaten Hitler and the Nazis. I don't say we beat Germany; we beat the tyranny of fascism. And the process of doing so required that we gave up substantial amounts of material consumption.
Clothing became hard to secure. Food became rather basic. Cars basically disappeared. Petrol was rationed, and so was much else. And the point was that those who had consumed a lot could no longer do so. In fact, the point was exactly that. We all had the same ration when it came to food, the same ration when it came to petrol, although most people didn't have a car, so that made very little difference, and the same ration when it came to clothing. My mother always told me about the fact that when my parents were getting married, she, her friends, her parents and relatives had to save up clothing coupons so that she could get a wedding dress. It was that difficult.
The fact is that that was the price that was paid to have a war.
Who is going to pay that price now? Because what I'm reading are questions by people like Andrew Neil, who's saying America is demanding that we increase our defence spending, and we should do so at the expense of the social care budget of the UK because why should America have been subsidising welfare benefits in this country at cost to people in the USA?
Let's ignore the fact that actually, the US didn't pay that cost because actually the USA paid for it on a deficit, which was the consequence of the US having to create the reserve currency of the world, which it put into circulation, increasing its total deficit as a consequence, and therefore the US never suffered any penalty for doing this, but let's also look at the stupidity, and I use the word wisely, of the comments made by Andrew Neil, because if defence is going to work, it has to be for the benefit of everyone. You can't, therefore, punish the poor for it. Because like it or not - and he doesn't seem to realise this - most people on benefits in the UK not only deserve them but are absolutely dependent upon them and are still living in poverty.
Therefore, the price of defence cannot fall on the most vulnerable in this country, who we have a duty to defend as a basic right within the state that we are. If we don't defend their right to survive, what are we trying to defend?
Actually, we are trying to defend the wealthy. Let's be clear about it. The people who are most vulnerable in the UK to attack from outside it are the wealthy, who would find that the assets that they owned would become the property of somebody else. That is what war is always ultimately about. War is always about the desire to control physical resources and the desire to control streams of taxation revenue in a subjugated state.
And at present, the taxation revenues are paid largely by the wealthy, and the control of the physical assets belongs very largely to the wealthy. So, if we are to increase the amount of money spent on defence, it is the wealthy who must pay for it because they are going to get the benefit from it. And it is their consumption that must suffer if we are going to reallocate people and resources into defence personnel and manufacturing.
This is the existential crisis that we have to actually address. The fundamental philosophical, economic, social, anthropological, and basic societal question about a threat from an external force is, who are we defending?
What is it that we're defending that they have?
And why should they pay for it?
And the answer, in every single case in the UK, is the wealthy are being defended. It is they who should pay for it, because it is they who will lose most if we are under attack. And as a consequence, we've answered that question.
We do need more defence, because undoubtedly we're at risk. But if there's a price to pay, it has to come out of the excess consumption of the wealthy, and it has to come out of the additional taxes that they will be able to pay as a consequence. And I stress that point. They will be able to pay as a consequence because we are going to deny them access to resources to consume in the excessive manner they already have.
And this is the reality we're going to face. War, or the threat of war, and the need for increased defence requires that we ask questions of this sort. And that's the type of analysis that we need to undertake to come up with the answers that are appropriate about the situation that we now find ourselves in, which is going to require us to reframe the whole question of what is the state about in the UK and maybe quite appropriately.
* This should obviously be Baltic states. This video was recorded without a script, notes or very much preparation time. Mistakes happen.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I remember back in the 70’s an interview with a US Army Sergeant who was training recruits.
He pointed out that one of the worst things about abolishing ‘The Draft’ was that the ‘Middle Classes’ basically had got out of having to defend the US.
By the same token we have a situation in the UK where the rank and file in the Army who do most the fighting and dying and suffer the physical and mental injuries of war are intentionally recruited from the ranks of the poorest most disadvantaged communities.
I spoke to someone who had worked on the Iraq War Crimes investigation and he said that much of what went on there was a consequence of Army recruitment policy.
So I suggest that we need to address the question of ‘who’ is doing the defending as well.
I’m right with you re who should pay, but I’m afraid your arguments here rely on the premise that the Chinese and Russians are currently an existential threat to us in Europe. As an aside it’s probably because you adhere to that party line that you’re allowed on the Beeb.
The notion that Putin is dead set on sweeping through the Baltics to Calais via the Brandenberg Gate is just nonsense. That bringing Ukraine into NATO was a special case and a dirty great big red-line for the Russians was known in Western diplomatic circles from the 1980s onwards – it was warned against by dozens of diplomats, academics, politicians and journalists from Noam Chomsky to Henry Kissinger. Putin himself warned against it in 2008 and him and Lavrov did so repeatedly since. And yet the Neoconservatives in the West kept pushing, poking and provoking. Please don’t take that as an endorsement of the invasion – there were other options available to the Russians – but this war was systematically provoked – the evidence is overwhelming.
That said, even if the Russians were threatening to go further than Kiev, what the recent catastrophe in Ukraine has proved is that any Russian advance through Europe – fairytale or otherwise – would be done at massive cost – the Russian Federation have lost around 100,000 dead in this war already – the Ukrainians probably multiples of that. We don’t need to massively re-arm to defend ourselves against this threat, real or otherwise, we need to spend what monies we have more wisely. We need to drop the boondoggles – the obsolete aircraft carriers and boutique, fragile cash-pits like the F-35 and concentrate on the kind of defensive munitions that have proved so effective in this horrendous war so far.
What we should do is take a leaf out of the Iranian’s book. They have, with a fraction of the resources available to us in Europe, developed a system of defences that has recently quite handily deterred the Israelis and US from lauching any serious attacks on them.
Ahead of all of those concerns though, we should start to accept that the Russians and Chinese have their own valid security concerns and start to negotiate with them on that basis. The ‘what would the US do if the Chinese or Russians had bases in Mexico?’ question is a valid one and should not be dismissed as it always is in any MSM discussion on matters of defence.
Finally and perhaps I’m just a wild hippy, but I’d suggest that we shouldn’t be remaining in or getting deeper into any defence agreements with any nations who have been enabling and arming the genocide in Palestine. Those nations include the, entirely unrepentant, Germans. I’m not sure why anyone would. Perhaps I should give Nicky Campbell a call, but I doubt I’d get on air.
You seem to miss my whole point – that I do not accept the premise that Russians are going to come knocking at our door with tanks in tow. I say so.
Sorry Richard – I hadn’t listened to the call in – just read this piece where you talk of Putin & Xi being enabled. Sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick. My point still stands re the boondoggles and the Germans though whatever their threat.
Much of what this talk of re-arming involves is just funnelling astronomical amounts of cash to the US corporations who have wasted billions of it in the last few decades. I think this should be front and centre in any discussion on the subjecft. Glad that you are getting traction on whatever subject though.
If I can piggyback on Adrian’s points – if you live in South America, The middle east, The Balkans, Asia (85% of the world population), The US withdrawing from the world stage makes it a safe place, as the US along with Europe has been causing almost all the wars and suffering since WW2.
So instead of ramping up defence spending, why don’t we ramp up diplomacy and understand where WE impinge on others, and find ways to live together. China is making great strides in “greening” its economy, we could all learn about that and spread that to all corners of the globe
“the Russian Federation have lost around 100,000 dead in this war already – the Ukrainians probably multiples of that”.
Nope.
https://youtu.be/Ja6-espHVSE
This gives a fairly accurate & up to date view on Russian casualties. they appear to be in the range 850,000 – 950,000 – with perhaps 200,000 dead in that.
Don’t have figures for Ukraine yet – but probably 200k max – maybe 300k
Missing from the above are the Ukrainian civilians which Putler & his scum butcher on a daily basis.
The narrative from the Pulter puppets in Moscow is “recover what we lost in 1990” (= & we want back the area we used to influence: Poland and the east Euros).
Russia delenda est.
Channel 4 News seems to be going down the pan.
They interviewed Tom Tugendhat last night and all he could do was state the obvious about what everyone knows about Starmer. And he seems to be wanting a job with Badenoch.
But there was little discussion as to exactly what the Tories had done to the armed forces since 2010. An air craft carrier without aircraft? Redundancies in the regiments? Selling off army staff quarters to private developers? Harrier jump jets sold off to the Yanks who at least know a good piece kit when they see one? It was bad enough New Labour sending men off to desert warfare in kit fit for the greener European theatres and using old lethal Landrovers to patrol Iraq in.
Tut,tut.
I heard that some German politician was making comments that seemed aimed at the ECB – that most Neo-lib of European institutions – in that – guess what? – Europe needed more money! So, I ask you then, what will come first, the supposed war on inflation – so as not to erode the wealth of our wealthiest – or the money needed to defend against nut cases like Putin whose shadow now emanates like a certain Austrian’s did in the 1930’s/40’s over Europe.
You cannot have willing people to fight your wars or defend your country and your allies if you don’t look after them. The year 1917 taught us that as I recall. Or have we forgotten already?
But you are right and so is Tim Snyder – the Neo-lib era of ‘no new ideas’ which really is an era where the rich have plugged themselves into just about every expenditure stream of government, siphoning off money, not paying taxes just so they can gorge themselves on money at everyone else’s expense – even national security. And this is what it has got us to – a very short-termist view on things like America and Russia, a too cosy rose tinted ‘the sun will always rise’ mindset that has been enabled because the the gap between public and private has been undermined by corruption.
Much to agree with
All good points.
From a US perspective, NATO has been a profit centre from the PoV of US weapons sales. The Russians are a threat to the UK, not via nuclear weapons but “anchor dragging” (Baltic) in e.g. the North Sea – all those off-shore wind farms with their farm to shore connections. Regard the anchor dragging as a test exercise – you can be sure the Russians are now looking at more sophisticated ways to cut cables.
Defence spending , each European country does its own thing/is in a state of semi-perpetual wheel reinvention (or buys from the US – see above). There is no commonaility of purpose or buying, which just makes everything more expensive. Right-whinge wing-nuts complain about “loss of sovereignty” if the Uk collaborated with EU countries on defense. Hmm is that the same soveriengty which gives the US control over the UK’s nuke “deterrent”? The editor of “The Register” wrote a book some years (Led by Donkeys) on how the UK wastes vast amounts of money of defense. I agree that those with the most resources should pay – but for what, exactly? And to what purpose? I have zero confidence that more defesne spending, regardless of who funds it, would be well spent, if only because generals always fight the last war – example: Russia in Ukraine (remember Battalion Tactical Groups?).
On a last note: there has been a surge in recruitment in Russia – on the basis that the war will end in a month or so – thus men are joining to collect their £60,000 join-up bonus (& it is at that level). If the war goes on for … 5 months? 6 months – there are going to be a lot of very unhappy people (not so much the dead but certainly the wounded).
The argument about Russian Red lines because they are a potential military threat is misplaced. Have a look at a map and see what NATO countries border Russia, None of them had any re-deployment from the West of forces from the US, UK France or Germany. A few brigades were in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea. Any analyst looking at NATO expenditure since the financial crisis will see there is not the capacity to attack Russia and I can think of no western politician who advocates it.
Russia on the other hand has sent troops in Kazahstan, Georgia and now Ukraine.
Their strategic objective is political. In the Cold War Finland was neutral and Finns tell me of how the old USSR would interfere in their domestic politics. Neutrality was not like it is for Switzerland or Ireland.
The treaties they proposed in Dec 2021 called for the removal of non-European nuclear weapons (so called tactical nuks ) and the effective neutralisation of the former Warsaw Pact countries (all of which opted to join to NATO supported by elections ) The wishes or opinions of the people of those countries don’t matter to Putin -or to many of the critics of the west. The Russian state knows that the strategic aims are best achieved without war.
Putin’s mystic nationalism ( Tim Snyder explains it ) see the people of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine as the Russian people.
The threat is from the values of Europe (and we know the imperfections) such as independent media, free elections, independent judiciary. It is not propaganda to say these hardly exist in Russia. Listen to those who have left.
Belarus is the model which people of eastern Europe see more clearly than many of the western public. It is a most repressive state and Lukashenko is fully supported by Putin. Putin does not see Ukraine as a real state. See the Novsti archived page issued just after the invasion.
The Russia pressure on Ukraine has been constant since about 2000 but it was the decision of Ukraine to join the EU at some point which was closely followed by the intervention in the Donbas and Crimea.
I think that is a much clearer picture of the threat than talk of Russian tanks invading European territory.
The UK needs to stop being bullied by the US into following their often disastrous lead, especially now America is under the despotic control of the dangerously unpredictable Donald Trump and the MAGA alt-Right. The vile proposal for turning Gaza into a ‘resort’, after expelling the Palistinians, should mark a definitive separation in the flawed pairing of our foreign policy, an agenda that is currently designed to support only US interests. An expansion of our, once well respected, diplomatic influence, unshackled from US such interests, is long overdue, but I fear that this objective is unlikely with Labour under Keir Starmer.
Senior military decision makers have been saying for quite some time that Trident Is a massive waste of money for a system that has become outdated by the altered reality of modern warfare. We would have significantly more funds available to transition into a more effective modern armed forces if we ditched the white elephant that is Trident! The US might start squawking, but hey, they have driven us to make this pragmatic shift in defence spending, by threatening to abandon Europe, so they can zip-it. We should pay serious attention to the cost-effective armements selected by nations who do not have unlimmited funds to squander on defence, but still manage to punch well above their weight.
The EU is now prepared to loosen the fiscal straitjacket to allow for increased spending on defence, but how soon before European Union countries realize, just as you did, that the manipulation imposed by fiscal rules is totally unwarranted? These restrictions have brutally impoverished the least well-off members of the EU, by imposing cruel neoliberal austerity while siphoning off national assets in precisly the manner that cripled Greece. You are right to point out that it is time to demand of our government that we defend the vulnerable from destitution before we obsess over enlisting them as cannon-fodder to fight for the assets of the wealthy.
Much from all that I agree with.
If there is to be increased defense expenditure, that causes a reallocation of real resources, it should indeed come from the wealthy. That reallocation of resources should happen anyway for increased expenditure in other areas such as health.
Defense expenditure is not a zero sum game. If we spend less on defence we don’t necessarily have more to spend elsewhere. That is the problem with appeasement. It emboldens aggressors leading to even higher expenditure later.
Prior to the end of the cold war the UK spent about 5% of GDP on defense. Defense expenditure peaked above 50% of GDP during WW2. Currently we are spending only 2% of GDP on defense. I think we need to spend more.
A modest increase in defense expenditure need not require reallocation of real resources if it uses unallocated real resources in the economy (resulting in growth). I would think that in our economy, currently suppressed by too high interest rates, there was room for greater expenditure (generally). Of course, if reallocation is required it should be borne by the wealthy.
To me it seems that, in an undoubtedly more dangerous world, there is both a need for, and the capacity to deliver, greater defense expenditure.
We should not increase defence spending.
Starmer has already stated that a joint peacekeeping force cannot be sent into Ukraine without an American “backstop”. The implication is that no matter what we do in terms of our defence we will remain subservient to a major power, in this case the US. We cannot defend ourselves, a position that will become more and more evident as AI insinuates itself into the practice of war.
Whatever we do willnot change this.
Will the US honour any NATO obligation, will Europe defend Denmark if US troops land on Greenland? Will Europe prevent ethnic cleansing. What will we do to ensure that international law continues to have a semblance of meaning?
Western Ukraine alone was never going to defeat Russia, the Russian speaking East was split asunder after the illegal and violent overthrow of a democratically elected government in 2014. Our leaders held out NATO membership to Zelensky and have now been embarrassed by Trump.
Trump is also suggesting that the defence spending of Russia, China and the US could perhaps be halved in the wake of a possible agreement.
Any moral argument dissipates when one thinks that during the last 14 months we have stood by and watched the killing of some 30,000 children by a country that has illegally occupied another for some 57 years and that our PM thought it right to deprive a civilian population of food,energy and water,
The idea that against this background we should begin to further weaken our already weakened social infrastructure, that ur elderly and infirm should be subjected to further indignities ,that we should impose taxes on income whilst leaving income accruing to capital to flow to secrecy jurisdictions is nonsensical.
I have never felt more alienated from the politicians and media of this country.
As you point out all parties embrace a neoliberal philosophy, all have placed their eggs in a US defence basket (and the yoke is now on them) and all believe in a version of household economics.
You rightly point out the seismic impact on the factors of production. Then there is the lack of any reserve policy just as the going concern status of our water suppliers is under threat and our high street banks may be embroiled in another £30b mis-selling scandal.
What do we do – we have a uniparty parliament and stupid people ringing talkshows to call other people stupid.
You say “the illegal and violent overthrow of a democratically elected government in 2014.”
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Do some research.
The Ukrainian government signed an association agreement with the EU ( while Russian bombarded Ukraine with anti-EU propaganda).
President Yanukovych decided he would withdaw approval. That lead to months of protest at the Maidan.
Yanukovych then agreed a new prime minister, a banker who had served before. Shortly afterwards Yanukovych fled and the extent of his corruption was revealed. The point is the government included the democratically elected Parliament. They were not overthrown. They then called for an election of a new President. A few months later the Parliament was re-elected and the pro-EU parties again had most votes.
I don’t dissent from all your sentiments but we need accuracy.
I believe Trump is all about shaking up the world order without having any real plan except reducing military spending. For the past thirty years we’ve watched the US spend billions in fighting wars around the world without really solving any problems. So Trump as decided to end these endless wars by forcing others to carry the burden of paying for these wars. Instead of continuing to pay for these wars it is time the world brought these wars to an end or as Richard says cut spending on welfare etc. We are told Russia is threat to Europe but we should remember it’s taken Russia three years to grab 20% of Ukraine. Russia is not the Soviet union which in three years pushed the Nazis all the way from Moscow to the Polish border.