“Instead of peace through strength we caused war through weakness… other democratic powers, especially in Europe, must commit to matching US defence spending as a proportion of GDP.”
Jeremy Hunt MP, writing in The Telegraph 11/03/22
As the world watches in horror the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an extremely dangerous narrative is emerging. One that claims Putin’s aggression in Ukraine would have been prevented, had NATO countries committed more to military spending and that the only rational response going forward is radical and immediate re-militarisation across the alliance. Germany, Poland, Romania & Norway have already announced historic increases in military spending, with huge pressure on others (including the UK) to follow suit. On the eve of the UK spring budget statement we ask, how well does this narrative match reality and what are the questions we must ask of policy makers at the brink of a new arms race?
As a result of a major increase in expenditure, last year the UK became the world's third biggest spender on weaponry (after the US and China). Not only does the UK already outspend Russia militarily, it is also part of NATO the largest military alliance the world has ever seen - NATO represents 58% of global armament spending (over $1.1 trillion in 2021). Last year, NATO countries outspent Russia by almost 18 to 1, yet this did not dissuade Putin's actions in Ukraine. New spending commitments will take this ratio to over 20:1 next year, but it is deeply questionable whether this will have any calming impact. Indeed, the most likely consequence of further spending increases will be reciprocal increases in Russian and Chinese expenditures. In such a global arms race we will all lose - due to the development and proliferation of ever more dangerous weapons, increased mutual fear and reduced spending in areas such as poverty alleviation, health protection, and tackling the climate crisis.
NATO & the normalisation of excessive military Spending
The US is not only the largest military spender in the world, it outspends the next 12 biggest spenders combined. Via NATO the US has successively tried to push other member countries to increase their military spending. An agreement was made at the Wales NATO summit in 2014 that Canada and the European members would work towards increasing budgets to 2% of GDP by 2024 - for many NATO countries this represented a doubling, tripling or even quadrupling of their existing military burden. The graph below shows the success of the agreement in increasing military spending, most significantly amongst NATO's newest member countries along Russia's border where spending was previously at its lowest. These increases have collectively increased overall military spending by NATO countries by over 15%, while Russian military spending contracted over the same period.
The fundamental problem is that the US is an outlier in terms of military spending, for context the average military burden in south and central America is 1.05% despite their having far lower GDPs and in many cases more significant security concerns. Even the world's second biggest military spender, China, has a military burden (at 1.23% of GDP) around one third that of the US. So why should the U.S provide a benchmark for others to work toward, do the MPs and journalists calling for the UK to meet US spending levels think China should do the same?
How much is enough?
When President Trump suggested NATO levels should be pushed to 4%, there was considerable upset that the US was interfering in the budgetary decisions of sovereign nations. Post-Ukraine such statements have become commonplace, with 2% moving from being an aspirational future target to an absolute minimum on the way to 4% or above.
‘All NATO Nations must meet their 2% commitment, and that must ultimately go to 4%!’
President Trump, Twitter, 12 July 2018
“Many countries still aren’t meeting their target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. And let’s be clear – that is a minimum. In the Cold War we were spending far more – upwards of 5 per cent."
Liz Truss MP, Washington, 11 March 2022
Poland's 'Defence of the Fatherland' Act last year had already increased military spending to 2.4% of GDP for next year, this will now be increased to at least 3%, Romania is to increase its military burden to 2.5%, Germany will more than double its military spending next year (to €100bn) and break the post-war consensus on German military intervention abroad. There is already disquiet that the UK will lose its place as the '2nd biggest spender in NATO' to Germany, resulting in calls for the UK to increase its own spending even further, suggesting a secondary arms race within NATO itself.
ARMS RACE WITHOUT END
For those too young to remember the nuclear arms race during the Cold War, the key thing to realise is that there is no limit on how far it can go. Since the height of the Cold War, the global nuclear stockpiles have been reduced by over four fifths without compromising the ability of both the US and Russia to destroy all live on Earth. In 1965 US defence secretary Robert S. McNamara suggested that 400 high yield nuclear weapons aimed at Russian cities was sufficient to ensure “assured destruction” of the enemy - at the time the US had over 31,000 such weapons. This spiral of spending, to address (often spurious) bomber or a missile gaps resulted in Soviet military spending peaking at 27% of GDP, exacerbating the impoverishment of its own people.
For every man, woman & child in the UK the Government spent $1,084 on the military in 2021. Four times more than was spent by the governments of Spain ($291) or Ireland ($245) and more than double the European average ($469).
Who speaks for reason?
“We must reboot defence spending and respond to new threats to our UK security following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine...If the Chancellor acts in his Spring Budget to boost defence, the Government will have our full support.”
Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey
It seems there are few prepared to challenge the false narrative of UK under-spending, with Labour also pushing to increase our military burden despite the cost of living crisis. There is no comparable force on Earth to NATO, there is no Walsaw Pact to counter, Russia is a minor economy with no possibility of success in a conventional war with NATO and no one can succeed in a nuclear conflict. Britain has already increased military spending beyond our means to become the third highest spender in the world - at a time of extreme economic hardship. Where the plight of Ukraine spurs further spending it should be on providing support for refugees (which has to date been woefully inadequate) and seeking the most rapid route to the restoration of peace in the region. Further militarisation will only exacerbate the conflict and those politicians joining in the current tub-thumping should be asked to explain where the money from a further weapons spending bonanza will come from as a quarter of British families are pushed into fuel poverty.
There is only one winner in the current situation and that is the arms industry, which has seen its profits soar, with stocks in Britain's BAE Systems up 23% and Germany's Rheinmetall up over 60% in the first month of the war. At the World Defence Fair in Saudi Arabia earlier this month both Russian and Ukrainian arms companies marketed their now battle tested products. If we're talking about a windfall tax on oil and gas companies (and we should be), why not also a windfall tax on those making record profits from the suffering of the Ukrainian people?
