UK defence spending must rise above three per cent – and quickly
4 min read
Recent events in Washington and Munich seem to have convinced a growing number of people that defence budgets across Europe – including here in the UK – are wholly inadequate in light of the serious and proximate threat to the security and stability of our continent.
The government says it is committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, but an increase without a timescale – or with a timescale that falls outside the current Parliament – is in fact no commitment at all.
In any event, it must now be clear that 2.5 per cent of GDP is inadequate to the needs of the day. By way of comparison, at the time of the First Gulf War – when it was only with difficulty that we fielded an armoured division in high-intensity conflict and contributed substantially to an extended air campaign – we were spending some four per cent of GDP on defence.
Even as recently as 2010 we were spending 2.6 per cent which, given the accounting changes that have taken place since then, would equate to more than 2.7 per cent today; that was at a time when we did not face a war in Europe, and when America’s substantial contribution to Nato was taken for granted.
We cannot just deploy UK forces on the assumption that they would not be attacked: hope is not a strategy
Viewed in this light, the reported request by the Armed Forces Chiefs for an increase in the defence budget to 2.65 per cent of GDP must be seen as not just modest but inadequate. Defence spending will need to rise above three per cent of GDP, and rise quickly, if we are to repair the damage inflicted on our combat capability and sustainability over the past 15 years.
The need for a rapid increase in defence investment is underscored by the US-led talks aimed at bringing an end to the current fighting in Ukraine. The Prime Minister’s statement that he would consider deploying UK troops to Ukraine in support of a lasting peace settlement has led to a great deal of comment and speculation in the media. All of this is premature. As yet we have no idea what shape an agreement – if any – might take, what security reassurance might satisfy Ukraine and be acceptable to Russia, or what the implications of such reassurance would be.
Whatever steps we consider taking, we must think through the potential consequences, including those of a worst-case scenario. What if we deployed UK troops or aircraft and Russia decided to renew its assault on Ukraine and fired on our forces? We cannot just deploy UK forces on the assumption that they would not be attacked: hope is not a strategy. Would we then be committed to a war with Russia? Such a war would not, of course, directly involve Nato, since an attack on Ukraine would not trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. None of this is to say that we should rule out a UK contribution to a post-settlement Ukraine, just that we should think very carefully about the possible consequences before – not after – we make such a commitment. Above all, though, we must clearly ensure that our defence capabilities, and those of our European partners, are powerful and resilient enough to act as a very strong deterrent to further Russian aggression.
The government has said that it is awaiting the results of the defence review led by Lord Robertson before making decisions about defence spending, but it has already constrained the review to an assumed budget of 2.5 per cent of GDP. That will not be sufficient to provide the level of deterrence we so obviously and urgently need. The government has no higher duty to the nation than ensuring the safety of its people: in this respect it must be judged by its actions, not by its words.
Lord Jock Stirrup, crossbench peer and former chief of the defence staff and marshal of the royal air force
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
