To think that we should spend less on defence

[Blightfitting]

Interesting article in the paper today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/01/britain-military-spending-defence-keir-starmer

It chimes with my thinking recently. Why is it that people are completely convinced that we need to spend way more on defence (and thus cut or borrow or raise taxes at home)? Why is the conversation not more nuanced?

How can Russia simultaneously be so shit that it can't beat Ukraine in 4.5yrs and also a looming threat to us?

I get that they can fight a shadow war, with cyber attacks and lone-wolves and infrastructure stuff. But the way to stop these things isn't aircraft carriers and tanks! Ukraine are holding their own using teeny tiny cheap drones, so why do we need to spend billions on battleships? And don't get me started on Trident. Why do we need to have so many nuclear weapons when surely one will do?

I honestly don't get it. Yes we need to be capable of defending ourselves, but the proposed ways of doing this seem bizarre and insanely costly relative to the actual threats we face. AIBU?

I think we need to put more £ into defence.

We're a member of NATO and have agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence and 1.5% on 'security' by 2035 and we're well shy of that. Russia & N Korea pose a clear threat as far as cyber attacks - both internet based and riping up undersea cables.

We can argue about the best way to spend the money, however what we can't do is wait until the last minute to make the money available. Capabilty needs a gradual increase in funding. If the MOD was given the full 3.5% tonight, they can't order the drones, ships and cyber security staff on Amazon for delivery tomorrow.

Ukraine has only lasted this long because they’ve been given almost the entire stocks of arms by Europe. We’ve got none left, and they need replacing.

I think we should prioritise defence.

Because cheap drones won't protect us against prolonged cyber aggression from China. Or if Russia & China join forces.

We need to maintain awareness, strong intelligence activities, and the hardware and computing assets to handle the data.

This is exactly it.

for the last five years we’ve been told we need to cut everything back to spend on defence. Cut welfare, education, healthcare and pump it all into defence.

meanwhile Russia, who are apparently our biggest threat, can’t make any meaningful progress in Ukraine.

it’s no coincidence this push is forced by Trump, who no doubt has shares in many military companies.

war machine goes brrrr

Ukraine isn't a tiny little country spending bugger all on defence. The Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe. It's over twice the size of the UK and spends a whopping 40% of it's GDP on defence compared with the UK which spends a fraction of that, i.e. just 2.5% of it's GRP. The Ukraine's military spending is the 7th largest in the World! Some figures per a Google search show the Ukraine spend more on defence/military than Russia! The Ukraine has proved to be able to repel Russia because it has a massive military/defence, planned for over the long term, to counter the ever present Russian threat. It's a very worthy opponent against Russia.

Ukraine’s GDP is $225.3 billion, compared to our $3,643 billion. It’s not comparable.

If your defence is strong you are less likely to need it. Russia thought Ukraine was weak, if they thought they were stronger they wouldn't have tried.

The MOD does not use their resources well. Their procurement record is notoriously inefficient and corrupt. It would be throwing good money after bad.

OP to add to the other responses to LESSEN the chances of nuclear war.

If we can't defend ourselves conventionally then we look weak. If an aggressor threatens us then if our conventional defence is weak after a short while we would have nothing to fall back upon other than going nuclear. And that could destroy us all.

We have relied on the US too long through NATO to back us up with their military. They spend proportionally way more than us on defence.

Not unreasonably they are saying we cannot keep riding on their coat tails and need to do more ourselves and want us to increase what we spend on defence to be more equal proportionally to them.

I am afraid it's absolutely necessary OP and successive governments in the UK have ducked the responsibility.

Yeah, to say 'well Russia can't defeat Ukraine so they are not a threat' doesn't tell the whole story;

Western governments and allied institutions have committed over $380 billion (approximately £300 billion) in combined military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine since the initial invasion. This includes over $170 billion in direct military and defense-related spending specifically allocated to sustain Ukraine’s armed forces.

The problem with defence spending is that the best case scenario is it all is a total waste of money (ie. you don't need it) but if you don't spend it and suddenly you need to defend yourself, you're screwed.

Only one nuclear missile? Are you nuts? Do you understand how our nuclear deterant works?

Yes and No.

Yes, we should spend less because nuclear weapons are an abomination as well as ruinously expensive, and a lot of defence spending is actually just propping up dying industries (like shipbuilding) instead of buying overseas and transitioning our workforce into jobs of the future.

No, we should spend more, because we are woefully underprepared for war or a security crisis in this country, and as we’ve seen in Ukraine, traditional warfare remains the most likely outcome. Russia is extremely unpredictable and it’s madness to rule out war.

For me, it’s not a Yes or No, because we need to spend to be more secure and better prepared that we are, but we need to spend on different thing. Yes, traditional munitions and equipment and well-trained armed forces, but also on our security infrastructure and preparedness. That includes domestic energy and food security.

Neither will warships or missiles. This is my point. Maybe the money we need to spend is more than we spend now, but I don't get why we're spending it on tanks and aircraft carriers.

At the moment our defense strategy relies heaving on the USA. We need to be able to defend ourselves and loosen our ties with USA if we don't want to be caught on the wrong side of history.

I do think we might need to spend more on defence. But the things you list (awareness, strong intelligence activities, and the hardware and computing assets to handle the data) likely wouldn't come out of the defence budget. One of the shortcomings in very simplistic discussions.about how much GDP should.be spent on "defence" is that actual defensive spending is very broad and can include infra spending and things like ICT capabilities. Of which defence spending as in money allocated to the mimistry of defence is only a small (but vital) part.

This. There is a massive ammo shortage in Europe, of all sizes, because of how much has been consumed in Ukraine. There are no spare weapons, transport, anti-tank missiles etc for the same reason. It has taken the provisions of most of Europe and the US for Ukraine to remain unbeaten. That can't continue at current levels. Ukraine did not survive on its own, so you can't say "Ukraine held its own against Russia", it took two continents worth of help!

People who want to spend less on defence are insane. We should be spending far more

This kind of response is what I have a problem with. A statement without analysis.

Why should we be spending more?
What are we defending ourselves against?
Are we spending the right amount on the right things, to defend against whatever it is we're defending ourselves against?
What kind of country is it that we actually want to defend, and is spending billions more on aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons as opposed to hospitals and schools the best way to defend it?

Your first mistake is using The Guardian as your go-to for trying to understand global geopolitical defence issues.

The world is a very dangerous place.

There are numerous states and bad actors who would very happily invade and destroy us. Many are regularly trying.

Just be very grateful that there are people out there prepared to risk their lives to save yours, as you sit in your middle class home reading The Guardian and signing online 'refugees are welcome here' petitions.

The world, sadly, doesn't work in the way your left wing thought leaders pretends it does.

Well I mean the article is by Simon Jenkins, hardly a noted left winger. He's about as libertarian as they come. And I don't think even the most swivel eyed soldier at the MoD would agree that 'numerous states would happily invade us'. But by all means continue to make baseless assumptions about me from your Moscow basement.

@Blightfitting

You mentioned:

Ukraine are holding their own using teeny tiny cheap drones,

They're not though, there's much more to it than that - They are holding their own and more using the whole layered defence/offence concept.

They are using much more capable/expensive bits of equipment than just small drones to help them hold the line, such as fixed wing fighters and expensive missiles on the defensive side and long range strike munitions such as SCALP on the offensive...even their indigenous drones being used for offence such as Flamingo aren't small and won't be cheap.

One problem with this whole debate is it suits some politicians to claim it will be all drones from now on because those claims can be used to jystify cuts on existing capabilities that in reality might still be very useful/essential for at least the next two or three decades...

...and BTW over the last few years Simon Jenkin's has consistently had a slightly contrary approach to the Russian threat and therefore defence spending - I'm not surprised by the tone of his article.

Duplicate post, apols.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you want peace, prepare for war.