Paul Mason is wrong, UK military spending is already out of control

DRAFT & UNINDEXED: DO NOT SHARE

Paul Mason’s comment piece in yesterday’s New Statesman calling for a dramatic increase in UK military spending and a policy of regime change in Moscow is dangerously misguided. While the UK alone already outspends Russia militarily, as part of NATO we outspend Russia almost 18:1 – if this overspending is our strategy to contain Putin it has demonstrably failed.

“the UK is going to need a bigger military”

Here are a few facts which seem to be lacking so far in this debate. Last year, the UK saw the largest percentage increase in military spending in almost 70 years¹, making the UK the third-largest spender in the world on the military in 2021 (behind the US and China).²

The assertion that the West needs to build up a technological advantage to dissuade Russia from a conventional military attack on NATO, is less grounded in reality than the ‘bomber gap’ paranoia at the height of Cold War. There is simply no comparable force to NATO. Not only is there no longer an opposing Warsaw Pact, but most of the countries that once made up that block are now themselves members of NATO. Russia’s current military spending is less than a fifth of that of the old USSR and less than a tenth of the current USA – it cannot hope to win a conventional war with NATO.

The chart above shows the final high point of Cold War spending vs the latest figures (2020) from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). While they don’t reflect the significant increase in UK spending in 2021, or the more recent increases announced by other NATO countries, they expose the lie that Putin's aggression has been enabled by NATO underspending.

Mason acknowledges that Russia lacks the military might to achieve Putin’s stated aims within Ukraine, yet states as fact Putin's military ambitions beyond the Ukrainian border and Russian's ‘existential threat’ to the UK. While there is certainly an existential threat at play here, it comes not from Russian tanks, but rather the escalatory arms race and attempts at regime change pushed in this article and elsewhere. Our ability to act in Ukraine is not constrained by the size of our armed forces but rather the unthinkable consequences of an all out war between nuclear states - if our army were ten times its current size, that position would be unchanged. While raising military spending is pushed as 'taking tough action' we must be clear that it does nothing to help the people of Ukraine suffering beneath Russian bombardment.

To discuss regime change imposed from the West without reference to the success or failure of similar recent efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is breathtaking. While we’re all agreed that the Russian people would be better off without Putin, such impositions from outside have an extremely poor track record. There is evidence is that current Western sabre rattling is actually strengthening Putin’s position within Russia - not only in terms of his improved public approval ratings but also his renewed support amongst previously critical elements of the Russian elite. Putin's third term has been defined by the narrative of the 'besieged fortress' - Russia as a great power under constant attack from the West. It is important to also consider our responses to the invasion via this lens to understand how they play out within Russia.

Excessive military spending is The real threat to our security and well-being

Mason makes passing reference to the 'multiple crises' facing the government, naming 'inflation, stagnation, climate and war' - yet seems determined we should put all our fiscal eggs in one basket. For every pound of climate spending over this parliament (on housing, transport or any other element of the NET Zero Strategy) we will spend over £7 on the military. ³

Any savings made from the unconscionable cuts in UK overseas aid have already been eaten up by recent military spending increases. Just this week, the national audit office documented how these cuts in UK assistance disproportionately affected war torn areas, with a year-on-year cut in aid to Syria of 69% and Yemen 62%⁴. A review of the impact of the UK Aid cuts estimated they could result in an additional 100,000 deaths a year, through cuts to child immunisation programmes alone.⁵

Back here in the UK, poverty is reaching crisis levels with the greatest drop in living standards since the 1950s, the impact of which will be felt primarily felt by the poorest. Demands made by the Left for radical changes in public finance must place these people front and centre, not add to their military burden, which is already more than double the European average. Mason argues that "(d)one right, increased defence spending can boost GDP pound-for-pound", yet offers no evidence to support this, successive studies have shown that investments in armaments creates fewer jobs than any other area of public investment⁶ while stifling wider economic growth.⁷ Putting similar levels of investment as we currently put into armaments into placing the UK energy transition on 'a war footing', would create far more jobs and reduce UK fuel poverty, while actually directly effecting Putin's ability to wage war by starving him of fossil fuel revenue.

Standing with Ukraine, must mean standing with the Ukrainian people. That means; immediate welcome for Ukrainian refugees here and aid for those abroad; amplifying voices for peace within Russia; seeking an immediate end to hostilities and supporting international arms control efforts, in particular those focused around chemical and nuclear weaponry.

1. RUSI (2021). A New Direction for the Ministry of Defence’s Budget? Implications of the November Spending Review. January. https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/policy-briefs/new-direction-ministry-defences-budget-implications-november-spending-review
2. The Military Balance 2022, published by The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) ranks the UK as the country with the third-highest military spending in 2021, after the US and China. The IISS ranked the UK as the fourth-largest spender in 2020 (behind India) and fifth for 2019 (after Russia). The changes come after a period of rapid expansion in the UK military burden.
3. The total planned spending by the government on the Net Zero Strategy (NZS) – aimed at reducing the UK’s carbon emissions – is £25.6bn over this parliament. This total does not include spending on flood defences – classified as climate adaptation – or international climate finance – which is part of overseas aid. See data on p.73 of: HM Treasury (2021). This is equivalent to less than 13% of the total UK military spending. A full breakdown of spending by year and area is given in here.
4. "Managing reductions in Official Development Assistance spending" Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, 31 March 2022.
5. Mitchell I, Hughes S, Ritchie E (2021). An Overview of the Impact of Proposed Cuts to UK Aid. Centre for Global Development. 25 January. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/overview-impact-proposed-cuts-uk-aid
6. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2017/Job%20Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20War%20-%20HGP%20-%20FINAL.pdf
7. See "The economic consequences of reduced UK military expenditure" J. P. Dunne and R. P. Smith Cambridge Journal of Economics Vol. 8, No. 3 (September 1984), "The political economy of military expenditure: an introduction" P. Dunne Cambridge Journal of Economics Vol. 14, No. 4 (December 1990) and "Does military spending stifle economic growth? The empirical evidence from non-OECD countries" Muhammed Azam (2020)