The government and its former defence secretary, who resigned yesterday, have both claimed that the UK faces an increased defence risk and that, as a consequence, defence spending must rise significantly. I have, though, to be honest. I am not convinced by this claim.
What I am not disputing is that the world is potentially a dangerous place for the UK and others. The war in Ukraine continues. The situation in the Middle East remains highly unstable, mainly through no fault of its own. Tensions between China and the USA might be growing. And cyber warfare, I accept, is now a real fact of life. There seem to be real threats to communications systems, energy supplies and infrastructure. None of these issues can be dismissed, but it is not at all clear why these issues necessarily imply that the UK should respond by spending tens of billions more on conventional military capabilities.
That is because another issue strikes me as much more significant. That issue is why, if the threats facing the UK are now so great, our armed forces are finding it so difficult to recruit and retain personnel.
This, of course, is not an entirely new problem. As I recall, armed forces recruitment targets have been missed for years, and retention rates among armed forces personnel are low, with many units heavily understaffed as a consequence. The result is that, somewhat surprisingly, our depleted military is now increasingly recruiting people without UK passports because it cannot find enough people within the UK willing to fill its ranks.
I stress that this is not a criticism of those who come from elsewhere to serve in our forces. My point is that if the UK really does face a significant external threat, why is it so hard to find people in the UK apparently willing to participate in its defence? That question seems to me to go to the core of the real defence crisis we face, which is not financial at all.
The reality is that military capability is not simply a matter of equipment. It actually depends on the availability of people willing to serve. More than that, it depends upon people believing that the institutions they serve are worthy of their commitment. This is because armed forces do not exist independently of the societies from which they are drawn. They should, and usually have, reflected those societies. And at present, it seems that people in the UK do not want to serve this country. That, I suggest, is because what we are witnessing is not really a defence crisis but a crisis of social cohesion.
The origins of this problem are not hard to find. For decades, ever since Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, people in this country have been told that society is of little importance and that individual advancement is what matters. That is, after all, the core idea within her favoured creed of neoliberalism, also so enthusiastically embraced by every prime minister since her.
In that case, markets have been deliberately promoted as the solution to almost every problem, whilst public institutions have been weakened and collective provision has been undermined. Trust in politics has, unsurprisingly, fallen as a result. Trust in government has also declined. And trust in many of the institutions, including the armed forces, that shape our lives has fallen, as well. We can see the evidence all around us.
It would have been quite surprising if these deliberate developments had not had consequences, and they have. What we know is that people are more likely to commit themselves to a society when they believe they have a stake in it. As a result, they are more likely to defend institutions that they respect. They are also more likely to make sacrifices when they believe those sacrifices serve a common purpose. The question that follows from these observations, which contradict the deliberately and expensively manufactured alienation of neoliberalism, is obvious. What we need to understand as a key question in defence policy is how many people in Britain now feel that sense of shared purpose?
As we all know, most young people in the UK now face unaffordable housing, insecure employment, declining public services, and growing awareness of what might properly be called dis-ease. They are repeatedly told that there is no money available to address these issues. Yet at the same time, they are now being told that very large sums can, or at least should, be found for military spending. That contrast is hard for them to ignore. And it is unsurprising that this contrast is alienating, in and of itself.
The result is that I am left wondering whether the greatest threat to Britain's security is not really from beyond our shores, but is entirely homegrown, and has been created, quite deliberately, by those supposedly tasked with defending this country and its institutions, which they have spent decades undermining.
In that case, if our society has become less cohesive than it once was, then perhaps the real defence issue is not whether we have enough tanks, aircraft or ships. It is whether we have maintained the social contract upon which any effective defence policy ultimately depends.
I question whether we have, because a society that does not believe in itself, as those who have and do lead the UK clearly do not, or they would not have imposed on it and its people so much harm, is unlikely to be made secure by higher military spending alone.
That, it seems to me, is the issue that deserves much more attention than it is receiving, but I am not expecting any politician to be talking about this any time soon because to do so they would have to admit something too difficult for them to acknowledge, which is that by very deliberate choice they just don't care, and that we are all paying a very high price for that.
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’m not convinced either that we need to spend more money on defence – we do though need to spend the present budget much better. The MOD are famous for wasting billions on botched procurement contracts, with seemingly no questions asked. Are we really going to hand them even more cash to fritter away. The MOD itself is in dire need of modernisation and that should be part of a transparent defence review. The public need to see where exactly the money will be going. No more blank cheques for an organisation that can’t be trusted with them.
I have a different take and maybe controversial.
Ever since the Second World War the west driven by neoliberalism has managed to use fear to create enemies and pursue wars over diplomacy. To manufacture consent, fear was used to win over the public. Today the common man might vote for wars….they are brainwashed.
Today’s wars are no different, west needs enemies to satisfy the neoliberal agenda. Today’s enemy is Russia , tomorrow China, it will carry on …..Peace is bad Economics. Now the AI boom has joined the military industrial complex …..it is anybody’s guess is they are working to develop apps for diplomacy !!
West has forgot to talk and anybody who wants talks is branded as Russia / China sympathizers.
I agree will all this, but would add that there is little point spending multiple millions of pounds per missile when we have seen in both Ukraine and Iran that relatively inexpensive drones can inflict massive amounts of damage. Throwing more money at a problem is generally a sign that the person has not understood of what that problem consists.
In my humble opinion, the very idea of spending on weapons is meaningless when we can spend on education, healthcare etc..
We in the west have to be honest – NATO is nothing but colonialism / imperialism rebranded and is only needed to maintain western hegemony. US maybe the main aggressor behind NATO but until Trump it served our purpose in UK / EU as we enjoyed the benefits of being an hrgon. Even now we want NATO purely to maintain hegemony (to do that we need to manufacture enemies) .
Impact of the current Iran war on global south is devastating yet so little time to discuss it in western MSM.
Sorry – I don’t see it other way. I always ask – why can’t we live in peace ? Is peace only achievable with weapons?
I think there are a lot of issues to explore relating to defence spending, why people are reluctant to join the armed forces. I agree that Mrs Thatcher and her successors have undermined the importance of society so that people feel less inclined to think about the wider community. I also wonder if the obsession with celebrity, footballers and other sports people ‘earning’ huge amounts means people think there are easier ways of making money.
I do think there are concerns over the countries defence but with the war in Ukraine showing how things have changed wonder what extra expenditure would be spent on? Are expensive missiles and ships that good an option? The Ukrainians appear to have set up a defence sector producing low cost but effective weaponry. The Russian Black sea fleet is keeping well away from the Black sea!
We are as expected getting the usual “We need to increase spending on defence so need to cut welfare and get rid of the triple lock!” Which was the line taken by Graeme Downie on R4 last night. Which is a load of rubbish.
So we need a rather more informed debate about defence spending and also MPs and commentators need to go on a course to find out how governments are funded!!!
My mum I’ll be 91 on Boxing Day. She was born on a British military base in Southern India in 1935 because my grandfather had trouble finding work in Wigan during the ’30s depression.
Moving forward I remember as a youngster hearing the slogan “Join the Army/Navy/ and learn a trade.”
Turning to our current situation and my view of military matters come down to this:
1) Military recruitment has been hit, I think by the realisation that over the past 30 or so, our armed forces have been committed to campaigns that were wrong on every level, from conception to execution, and as a consequence were criminal wastes of lives. And this comes down to incompetence in governance in allowing such involvement to occur. The neoliberal involvement led to British forces going into action inadequately equipped, such as going to Iraq without climate-suitable kit, or going on patrol in Afghanistan in vehicles unable to withstand roadside bombs. Whoever decided that “in-time ordering” was suitable for the needs of instant military response was an idiot of the highest order.
Finally, outsourcing has also had its effect. Only two months ago the government got it in the neck because a naval vessel meant to go to Cyprus was stuck in a yard undergoing repairs. Would the fact that the yard was a private company that possibly clocked off at 5pm or so every day have been delaying rapid deployment? If so, we have what we have, and what we have is a market- induced shambles.
I rest my case.
Oops! It’s my mum who will be 91 on Boxing day.
Apologies for any typos!
I noted this in Al Carns’ resignation letter
National resilience is about more than defence in the narrow sense. A strong country is not simply one with capable armed forces. It is one where working people feel economically secure, public services function, energy is resilient, communities are stable, and young people can see a future worth working towards.
If my resignation accelerates the transition towards resolution, then the impact will far outweigh the act. We need a new way of governing and we need it now.
For my own part, I will keep arguing for a politics rooted in resilience, seriousness, and national renewal. For a country where working people can once again feel secure about the future. And for the service personnel and veterans this government still has a duty to.
The deal this country makes with the people who serve it, in uniform, in classrooms, on building sites, is broken.
Maybe the Labour MPs can respond to this?
I hope he will be the first person to sign up when he gets his P45 from Westminster.
You hit the nail squarely on the head.
People will not risk their lives for something that they don’t believe in or feel they belong to (unless they really, economically, have no choice).
If the government wants people to defend the country, they need to offer them something worth defending.
There used to be recruiting offices in many deprived areas, from which most of the ordinary military personnel came, at the same time there were military scholarships at universities for those intended to be military leaders. I don’t think either of those things still happen, presumably ended to save money. Personally I am glad to see the back of recruitment aimed at those from deprived backgrounds. Join the army and get a trade, join the navy and see the world. None of them mentioned join the armed forces and get killed.
According to my father, the traditional rejoinder to “join the navy and see the world” was “join the air force and see the next one!”
There is well trodden path here of planned disorder.
Once you have stopped supporting your citizens with social security and given them austerity you can then give them people to blame and get angry at and then you have manufactured the introduction of authoritarianism under the guise of imposing ‘order’. You can also create a side line in forever wars to keep them occupied and feed the profits of industrial military complex with the banks making huge profits by imposing that ‘order’ on your enemies.
And who has brought us this? The rich of course – capital – which has been made freer than any of us under Neo-liberalism. But the prospect of us going into an Orwellian type world which has nothing to do with the Left or communism or socialism is what really makes me smile – ruefully.
I suppose we’ll have a lot to talk about before we eventually shuffle off our mortal coils.
Very true.
I’m reminded of a recent poll.
Half of young people say they would never fight for Britain in a war, poll shows.
People need something that is worth fighting for. Why fight for a country that is not fighting for you? The traditionalists will say “duty”, but that is bogus.
Arguably the only time we have had genuine change, that was of benefit to ordinary people, was after a war! 1945, when the Atlee government was voted in because people did not want to go back to what was on offer before. It was effectively a new social contract, one that has been gradually taken away over the last fifty years.
The politicians need to ask themselves the same question. You want people to fight for you, you need to give them something worth fighting for.
Is neoliberalism worth fighting for? I don’t think so.
“Arguably the only time we have had genuine change, that was of benefit to ordinary people, was after a war! 1945, when the Atlee government was voted in because people did not want to go back to what was on offer before. It was effectively a new social contract, one that has been gradually taken away over the last fifty years.”
True, although as well as the positive pro-Atlee vote, there was a strong vote against Churchill, because he wanted to try the kind of military adventurism that followed the official end of WWI. (For British involvement in Russia / the Soviet Union, I can recommend Anna Reid’s A Nasty Little War. There’s also the Anglo-Irish war and quite a few others.)
An excellent analysis: neglect of questions of value- what government is actually for- results in total confusion in choosing the practical policies to pursue. Have we ever seen à government with a clear and honest moral compass? Value questions are notoriously difficult to resolve but engagement in the task is in itself à contribution to the health of society.
It’s not just the social contract but the much-vaunted military covenant that subsequent governments have broken. Who could blame young people for not considering a career in the forces, when homeless veterans are seen in towns and cities across the country, left on the pavement as if they were the MoD’s discarded broken toys?
Cool heads Prevail is right, I think, about the broken military covenant. Not helped by outsourcing post military care to the charity sector rather recognising the moral responsibility for care and rehabilitation belongs to the state that recruited them into harm’s way.
Further worsened by seeing the biggest charity in this, hoarding millions of pounds and overpaying its CEO.
Any potential adversary looking in can easily identify that we are vulnerable because of self-inflicted harm.
We are vulnerable because our domestic politics and policies are destroying our social cohesion.
Contrast us with Finland where 80% of the population declare that they would fight to secure their way of life.
We maybe could do worse than adopting all of the Finnish style governance ourselves and then finessing from there.
The Finnish are not some different species from us…. they are simply being governed better.
They also lost about 10% of their land in the war against the USSR in the 1940s. Their determined resistance preserved the country as an independent state. It had been Russian territory before the 1917 Revolutions.
During the Cold War the Soviet Union could influence who was appointed to government; criticism of the USSR was to be censored. Solzhenitsyn’s ‘Gulag Archipelago’ could not be sold in bookshops.
Their foreign trade was controlled. They could not join NATO.
They have also seen hundreds of thousands of people flee Russia since 2022, with the vast majority going on to other countries.
This might explain their willingness to accept conscription, join NATO and support Ukraine.
Having a bear for a neighbour makes a difference. RJM a very good piece. Don’t neglect the birds!
The UK’s present ideas on defense remind me of the conviction in WWI that cavalry was still useful in Europe. Immigrants in the armed forces reminds me of the Roman policy on “barbarian” mercenaries, which helped the decline of the RomanEmpire. Lots of historical parallels, though they may be nothing more.
I’d like someone in the govt to say what are the current and future threat we need to prepare against, and only then think of how should it be done. Cyber warfare is almost certainly a threat; I don’t believe that invasion is a threat. And why do we want to behave as though we are still a Great Power, projecting this idea worldwide?
It’s both. The social contract is broken. People need to feel sufficiently looked after by and part of their society to be inclined to actually defend it.
But the crisis in terms of military capability of the UK from a defence point of view is real, just like the crises seen in the funding of the health, education, general public service provision. Austerity is being felt now in so many areas and it means more money is needed now to deliver less than if we hadn’t had austerity. Doing things on the cheap often ends up significantly more expensive long term.
The UK has almost no ballistic missile defences. We have a pathetic naval capacity with hardly any ships ready to sail.
We need significant investment to get sufficient defence in place to defend against ballistic missile and drone attacks.
Depending on how that is done it could also generate significant economic activity as a result.
Do I think Russia will attack the UK any time soon with ballistic missiles and drones? No – hopefully not. Could there be a situation where a European state goes fully fascist and this provokes a major proxy conflict which the UK ends up involved in? Quite possibly.
Drones also provide huge risk of terrorist attacks which would be difficult to defend against even with proper defences in place, let alone the current provisions.
Our current military was not fit for purpose prior to the Ukraine conflict. The major evolution of drones, ballistic missiles and technology in the Ukraine war has completely shifted the dial on where defence capacity needs to be. A hostile actor right now could easily run riot in the UK with a sneaky drone attack. Appropriate defences must be scaled up.
If the politicians and the rich will not send their families to fight, why should anyone else!
Working in defence, most of the problems come from profit seeking, lack of skills and just average business costs being too expensive.
Since, lots of defence is privatised I see the same problems from the model of privately owned public good with inefficient regulation, causing a cost cutting incentive as opposed to product maximising, many of the defence companies operate in lots of small de facto monopolies so it allows for this.
There is also a massive lack of engineering skills – worse than the statistics – I’m pretty sure 4/5 engineers in my workplace don’t really understand much engineering from a mathematical/scientific perspective, then apparently we are hard to recruit in the first place. If the business doesn’t have the skills then the work will get contracted out which happens regularly. Engineers are treated as a cost centre (I think that is the correct term), even if they are responsible for creating better products which is probably because of the small de facto monopoly idea.
Thanks
We have for the last 25 years allowed America governments to tell us who is or is not our enemy. And be we, i include 40 nations in the West that is more than just Europe and NATO but also Canada, Turkey, Australia etc. We do not believe it anymore. US administration swings between being ally/friend/enemy of China, Russia and the axis of evil. No explanation is given. I am meant to accept it or I am part of the enemy within. If I reason that there are indeed security threats outside of these groups, like climate change, then I am labelled as a radical and dangerous who is part of a hoax. This is how I see it. The US has the keys to our security institutions and is busy talking them over for their national interest and not ours. This is potentially the largest security threat that we face.
No doubt Richard, you are still mulling over what the hell is going on (I note that there is backlash against the redevelopment of some of Albania’s protected habitats by the Trump family) and how to get your head around it. There is such a lot to process.
I can only offer limited advice I’m afraid but I think that when you write, how about keeping in mind that you are writing to someone in the future who is (maybe) tasked with sorting out some mess or other that was made in our time? As a writer – a very good one – one of the tasks history allots to you (you are not really given much choice) is to write and bear witness to what is happening. What you write will be a time machine, a depository of messages, a lifebelt even to the future about…well….how not to do things mixed in with many better ideas. A gift to humanity to be precise, just when they might realise that it needs it.
There you go…………………
Thank you. I rather like that idea.
I have never been under any illusion that most of what I write will have an immediate impact. Very few ideas do. Most have to wait for their moment. For some. that never arrives.
Perhaps part of the task is, as you suggest, to leave a record. To explain what happened, why it happened, and why alternatives existed when so many claimed there were none.
If, in years to come, someone trying to make sense of our times finds a useful idea, a warning, or even just reassurance that not everyone accepted the prevailing wisdom, then that will have been worthwhile.
And, if nothing else, I hope the record will show that many of the problems we face today were choices, not inevitabilities. That matters because if they were choices, different choices remain possible.
Thank you for the encouragement. It is appreciated.
I do not believe we are in danger of attack. I see many experienced military people online, on YouTube and other places making it quite clear this situation has been manufactured by and for the USA and Israel.
Russia does not want to invade Europe. It’s incursion I to Ukraine was as much to protect ethnic Russians in the East who Ukraine have been killing wantonly over the past years since the US led takeover of government there.
And you are quite right Richard. Why would anyone country’s young people want to lay down their lives, become the sacrificial lambs for the monsters who are setting out the rules now?
Most have already had their futures sacrificed on tha alter of Austerity. Let us hope there is a nationwide (continent wide) refusal to engage with this insanity.
We all have one life. No one wants to group into masses to be mown down for the ambitious of evil megalomaniacs like Trump, Musk and their like.
Call me paranoid but 3 or 4 years ago I came to the conclusion that if the ‘powers that be’ decided to solve all the social, environmental and physical problems the world faces, they would probably conclude that they could fix everything with an intense world war that would cull 75% of the worlds population.
Since then everything that has happened across the world looks to me like it is being deliberately manufactured to lead us to that final obliteration.
Let’s hope that when you posted that video last week “you are not crazy” you were mistaken and that my craziness manifests as paranoia.
And one has to wonder whether this is why billionaire Peter Theil is moving to Buenos Aires.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/28/world/americas/peter-thiel-argentina.html
I’m no billionaire, but I’m glad my wife and I retired to Tasmania.
It reminds me of the film On the Beach.
I wanted to share this with people. It’s actually 14 years old but how prescient
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8
An excellent TED talk. I only discovered Nick Hanauer on a 2 hour Diary of a CEO video last week where he said many of the same things as he did 14 years ago.
@Kit W-N – It reminds me of the film On the Beach… 🙁
@Roseanne
Yes, I’ve been thinking about that. I re-read the book a couple of years ago, it’s a bit dull compared to the film.
Fortunately Tasmania generates all it’s electricity from hydro, so we’re assuming our extra freezer will still be working when the shitake really hits the fan.