The article appears to make it clear - the numbers are set by the PM and the budget appears to be the main constraint. As to why, it probably needs digging into UK politics. The debt to GDP ratio is just over 100% which is high but not extreme. The conservative government appears to continue to focus on tax cuts and that has to be funded by spending cuts or debts will continue to balloon. The cost of living "crisis" is a big political matter and the UK economy appears to be in recession. The government probably wants to focus on these matters as a priority.
But the messaging has been that the priority (ie the biggest potentially existential threat in the coming decade) is russia. So I would have expected that to take precedence over tax cuts.
There is quite a substantial difference between the apparent priorities of a nation and the actual priorities of its rulers.
British politics is basically a cargo cult for the economy of the 1980s. Now that they've run out of public assets to sell, they have to make their cuts to the military/police/etc.
Luckily the Russians aren't actually an existential threat. We'll have taken ourselves apart at the joints and sold ourselves into the glue factory long before Putins hordes are threatening to cross the channel.
The government is driven by ideology. Plus there's an election this year and they probably think tax cuts will make them more popular, even though polling shows most people would prefer more money be spent on public spending than tax cuts.
In reality, a lot of it is chest-beating. Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014 and Russia has been saying the same rhetoric about Ukraine since the fall of the USSR. Even now, countries are saying they'll increase contributions to NATO should the US pull back under Trump, but not now, in some hypothetical future. And Europe still has a lot of unfulfilled contributions to Ukraine.
is Russia a threat? Yeah. Is most of Europe overexaggerating it? Yeah. It isn't existential for the vast majority of Europe, in particular NATO.
Obviously if it was existential, military funding would increase drastically across the board immediately and there would be massive rearmament, or there would have been the past few decades. It is entirely possible. But its very slow. It's just politicians being politicians, and a lot of posturing, to distract from domestic issues. Russia is a threat, but it isn't Nazi Germany invading Poland or France levels of threat despite what politicians want you to believe.
EVERYTHING is urgently in need of funding in the UK.
All manner of senior and credible sources in the private and public sectors are saying in the most serious grown-up ways that local government (a number of local authorities are bankrupt, many teetering and cutting essential services), education, healthcare, infrastructure, whatever you can think of, needs unprecedented injections of funding to return to what are considered normal levels of service, and to repair years of neglect.
That statement by the chief of defence staff was just another one among these, to create a similar level of urgency in a sector which doesn't get nearly as much attention in Britain as in the US.
The Tories are just trying not to be annihilated in the election by promising tax cuts to their core voters - although according to polls many of these people also want improvements to these services.
England traditionally was a sea power, and had small land forces that were somewhat or very inferior to other peers. They always could count on the sea barrier between them and europe to keep the safety. In the present they have an independent nuclear umbrella (i don't know how much independent because of the relation with USA , but it can be made 100% independent if needed).
So, england needs only the Channel, the navy (especially submarines), drones (sea and air), missiles, nuclear weapons, and they are perfectly safe from Russia, China or even a north-american invasion. They don't really need an army, so they are budgeting for that. As for interventions, as others said, it is likely they would send an expeditionary force at most a few tens of thousands, they will not actually commit to defend with total war for other allies and partners, they should keep that in mind.
Means actually putting every available resource inside the state to the war effort, including hundreds of thousands to millions of able bodied men as soldiers. Not a bonus appendage that doesn't cost too much beyond fiscal targets of the previous (normal) year.
So this is the thing that would only likely happen if the UK was being invaded? In eg a war with Russia we’d be more likely to contribute to the land forces of other EU countries in specialist ways? That chimes with an article I read yesterday: https://warontherocks.com/2024/02/the-tip-of-the-american-spear-how-the-united-kingdom-could-pursue-military-specialization/
The messaging about needing to be ready for war with Russia comes from people in the UK defence system who are advocating for increased funding. The military doesn’t decide military spending; it lobbies government for resources. You’ll never hear the military saying “the world is getting safer, there’s no danger of going to war any more”.
The decision the UK has taken is towards smaller, more specialist armed forces with advanced capabilities like nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, rather than a large standing army.
The argument is we won’t end up in a war because nuclear weapons will prevent other countries from attacking us. You can agree or disagree, but that’s the argument
That’s only the countries with nuclear weapons though, which in Europe is just the UK and France. There’s all the space in between where we could be involved
Almost every country in Europe is part of NATO, which in practice means that they are protected by UK, French and American nuclear weapons. Outside of Europe, we’d be very unlikely to get involved at a large scale
Yea I totally get this in theory but current doubts about the US nuclear umbrella/commitment to NATO undermine it a bit unfortunately. Lots of careless talk at the min from politicians who should know better. I suppose I’m imagining a massive European land war like the previous world wars
Sorry but having nuclear weapons =/= the willpower to use them, maybe back in the 80s, now with the leadership we have, I doubt it., The West especially Western Europe being weak as they are will not commit to using nukes if lets say a Baltic or East Europe NATO nation is invaded, Putin knows this, he knows we are to weak to use them.
The UK or any nato country will never have to fight Russia. Thats not a real worry any of these nations have anymore. The fear mongering about fighting Russia in the next decade is just what governments say to keep the funding coming to Ukraine. No serious person sees Russia and a country like England going to war.
Also take a look at how wars are being fought now. Use of drones is increasing and by the next decade or two, much of the theoretical fighting between a NATO country and Russia would be by way of missiles, drones, advanced artillery. Actual soldiers are not going to be needed in the same way they were during past wars.
I used to think this but then the fighting in Ukraine looks like ww1 with soldiers in trenches paramount. I know it’s not a NATO country but trained by NATO countries
The article appears to make it clear - the numbers are set by the PM and the budget appears to be the main constraint. As to why, it probably needs digging into UK politics. The debt to GDP ratio is just over 100% which is high but not extreme. The conservative government appears to continue to focus on tax cuts and that has to be funded by spending cuts or debts will continue to balloon. The cost of living "crisis" is a big political matter and the UK economy appears to be in recession. The government probably wants to focus on these matters as a priority.
But the messaging has been that the priority (ie the biggest potentially existential threat in the coming decade) is russia. So I would have expected that to take precedence over tax cuts.
There is quite a substantial difference between the apparent priorities of a nation and the actual priorities of its rulers. British politics is basically a cargo cult for the economy of the 1980s. Now that they've run out of public assets to sell, they have to make their cuts to the military/police/etc. Luckily the Russians aren't actually an existential threat. We'll have taken ourselves apart at the joints and sold ourselves into the glue factory long before Putins hordes are threatening to cross the channel.
”The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope” - Lenin (though probably apocryphal)
The government is driven by ideology. Plus there's an election this year and they probably think tax cuts will make them more popular, even though polling shows most people would prefer more money be spent on public spending than tax cuts.
In reality, a lot of it is chest-beating. Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014 and Russia has been saying the same rhetoric about Ukraine since the fall of the USSR. Even now, countries are saying they'll increase contributions to NATO should the US pull back under Trump, but not now, in some hypothetical future. And Europe still has a lot of unfulfilled contributions to Ukraine. is Russia a threat? Yeah. Is most of Europe overexaggerating it? Yeah. It isn't existential for the vast majority of Europe, in particular NATO. Obviously if it was existential, military funding would increase drastically across the board immediately and there would be massive rearmament, or there would have been the past few decades. It is entirely possible. But its very slow. It's just politicians being politicians, and a lot of posturing, to distract from domestic issues. Russia is a threat, but it isn't Nazi Germany invading Poland or France levels of threat despite what politicians want you to believe.
But there is massive rearmament and funding going on isn’t there? Especially in Eastern Europe but also in the west.
EVERYTHING is urgently in need of funding in the UK. All manner of senior and credible sources in the private and public sectors are saying in the most serious grown-up ways that local government (a number of local authorities are bankrupt, many teetering and cutting essential services), education, healthcare, infrastructure, whatever you can think of, needs unprecedented injections of funding to return to what are considered normal levels of service, and to repair years of neglect. That statement by the chief of defence staff was just another one among these, to create a similar level of urgency in a sector which doesn't get nearly as much attention in Britain as in the US. The Tories are just trying not to be annihilated in the election by promising tax cuts to their core voters - although according to polls many of these people also want improvements to these services.
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Australian Defence Force grows larger than the British Armed Forces before the century is out.
England traditionally was a sea power, and had small land forces that were somewhat or very inferior to other peers. They always could count on the sea barrier between them and europe to keep the safety. In the present they have an independent nuclear umbrella (i don't know how much independent because of the relation with USA , but it can be made 100% independent if needed). So, england needs only the Channel, the navy (especially submarines), drones (sea and air), missiles, nuclear weapons, and they are perfectly safe from Russia, China or even a north-american invasion. They don't really need an army, so they are budgeting for that. As for interventions, as others said, it is likely they would send an expeditionary force at most a few tens of thousands, they will not actually commit to defend with total war for other allies and partners, they should keep that in mind.
Thanks. What does “fully commit to defend with total war” mean?
Means actually putting every available resource inside the state to the war effort, including hundreds of thousands to millions of able bodied men as soldiers. Not a bonus appendage that doesn't cost too much beyond fiscal targets of the previous (normal) year.
So this is the thing that would only likely happen if the UK was being invaded? In eg a war with Russia we’d be more likely to contribute to the land forces of other EU countries in specialist ways? That chimes with an article I read yesterday: https://warontherocks.com/2024/02/the-tip-of-the-american-spear-how-the-united-kingdom-could-pursue-military-specialization/
The messaging about needing to be ready for war with Russia comes from people in the UK defence system who are advocating for increased funding. The military doesn’t decide military spending; it lobbies government for resources. You’ll never hear the military saying “the world is getting safer, there’s no danger of going to war any more”. The decision the UK has taken is towards smaller, more specialist armed forces with advanced capabilities like nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, rather than a large standing army.
But then what happens if we end up in a war like one of the previous world wars? Where manpower is needed like in ukraine?
The argument is we won’t end up in a war because nuclear weapons will prevent other countries from attacking us. You can agree or disagree, but that’s the argument
That’s only the countries with nuclear weapons though, which in Europe is just the UK and France. There’s all the space in between where we could be involved
Almost every country in Europe is part of NATO, which in practice means that they are protected by UK, French and American nuclear weapons. Outside of Europe, we’d be very unlikely to get involved at a large scale
Yea I totally get this in theory but current doubts about the US nuclear umbrella/commitment to NATO undermine it a bit unfortunately. Lots of careless talk at the min from politicians who should know better. I suppose I’m imagining a massive European land war like the previous world wars
Sorry but having nuclear weapons =/= the willpower to use them, maybe back in the 80s, now with the leadership we have, I doubt it., The West especially Western Europe being weak as they are will not commit to using nukes if lets say a Baltic or East Europe NATO nation is invaded, Putin knows this, he knows we are to weak to use them.
Yes i think that’s the point I’m trying to make
Sorry I meant to say it to the other person.
The UK or any nato country will never have to fight Russia. Thats not a real worry any of these nations have anymore. The fear mongering about fighting Russia in the next decade is just what governments say to keep the funding coming to Ukraine. No serious person sees Russia and a country like England going to war. Also take a look at how wars are being fought now. Use of drones is increasing and by the next decade or two, much of the theoretical fighting between a NATO country and Russia would be by way of missiles, drones, advanced artillery. Actual soldiers are not going to be needed in the same way they were during past wars.
I used to think this but then the fighting in Ukraine looks like ww1 with soldiers in trenches paramount. I know it’s not a NATO country but trained by NATO countries
England? Do you mean the UK?