Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Digest opened free editor
Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Shortly before traveling to meet Donald Trump, Sir Kerr Starmer announced last week “We will keep our intercourse to spend 2.5 percent of our gross domestic product on the defense. But in light of the serious threats we face, we will bring this goal forward, so we meet it in 2027.” Moreover, this increase in spending will be funded by reducing spending on external development from 0.5 percent of the total national income to 0.3 percent.
The Prime Minister stated that “in the face of continuous challenges and generations, European countries must do more to defend them. This is indisputable.” However, what the UK will do is also to be “subject to economic and financial conditions” that are tightly drawn so that the increase in defense spending is trivial and the additional cost that the public holds is zero. This is not a serious response to the challenges facing the UK. This was true when it was announced. It has even become more honest after Friday’s meeting with Volodimir Zelinski in the Oval Office. Europe’s security is now up to Europeans. The United Kingdom should be at the forefront.
Indeed in February 2024, Defense Committee for the House of Commons A report argued that “there is a lack of multiple capabilities within the armed forces of the United Kingdom.” according to Building the ability of defense in EuropePublished by the London -based International Institute for Strategic Studies in November 2024, is similar to the situation in most other European forces.
Moreover, these shortcomings continue despite the increase in defense spending in recent years. This is partly due to the size of historical accumulation. Also, due to the urgent need to transport equipment to Ukraine over the past three years. This leaves a huge hole that European members in NATO, including the UK, must fill as soon as possible.
Looking at the scale and urgency of these pressures, spending on defense will need to rise significantly. Note that it was 5 percent of the GDP in the United Kingdom, or more, in the 1970s and 1980s. You may not need to be at these levels in the long run: modern Russia is not the Soviet Union. However, it may be high as it is during accumulation, especially if the United States withdraws. It may be reasonable to finance the temporary increase in investment with borrowing. But if defense spending is permanently higher, taxes must rise, unless the government can find sufficient spending cuts, which is doubtful.
In the long run, high income taxes will be the best way to exchange the growing defense burden. However, the Labor Party disappears, instead, only when the United States explodes the United States Agency for International Development. The UK has already reduced its share of GDP, which has been spent on aid from 0.7 percent under David Cameron, to 0.5 percent during the Boris Johnson era. Now it must be 0.3 percent, it is likely that it will spend nearly half of it Looking for housing asylum.
Abandoning help to the poorest of the world is the wrong way to finance the defense needs. Annnelies DoddsThe Minister of International Development was right to resign. The money that was released is very small. Moreover, it will increase global misery and weaken the UK’s voice in the world. The decision is a sign of evasion and cheese.
The truth is that “Peace profits” It ended with the return of the war to Europe. The United Kingdom can spend more on the defense. Without doing this, it will not be possible to either have a voice in the joint defense of its continent or even defend itself. You should play a leading role in strengthening the European NATO column.
Fortunately, the UK can realistically expect economic returns for its defensive investments. Historically, the wars were the mother of innovation. This was amazingly true in World War II. The “Economy of the Beginning” of Israel began in its army. The Ukrainians are now A revolution in the drone warfare. John Van Renin, Chairman of the Economic Advisors of the Treasury Consultant in the United Kingdom, Rachel Reeves, Participate in writing a paper On the pretext that an increase of 10 percent in defense research and development leads to an increase of 4 percent in special research and development. in Another paper composedIt argues that these benefits depend on open and competitive financing to create defense. However, the important point is that the need to significantly spend on the defense must be seen as more than just necessity and also more than just a cost, although both are true. If this is done in the right way, it is also an economic opportunity.
Today, the United Kingdom faces a bleak new reality. This is unlikely to be temporary. With Russia’s encouragement and withdrawing the United States, the UK government must pretend that almost nothing has changed and must bear a few additional costs. Starmer must persuade the public to admit today’s facts. To date, it has been very shy.
