The UK's Defence Spending Imperative

The global security environment is changing at a rapid pace; far-reaching action is being necessitated by the governments of the world with unparalleled speed. 

Indeed, with higher geopolitical threats, an important point of contention, particularly in the United Kingdom, is how much the nations shall spend to take their military capabilities up a notch. 

The UK's defence spending has been at the forefront of debates among policymakers, with increased calls by them for higher budgets to tackle both immediate threats and long-term strategic concerns.

The Need to Increase Defence Spending

The chief of defence staff, UK, Sir Tony Radakin, has been in the lead in his demands for more funds for the armed forces. His call for more money for defence has come at a time when the world is having big geopolitical upheaval.

He made this clear during an appearance on BBC One's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme when he said that the request was no surprise yet very necessary. The person in my job would always want more for defence, he said, highlighting ever-growing demand on UK forces.

However Treasury minister Darren Jones pointed out that government committed to growing the defence spend, up from 2.3% to 2.5% of national income. But he did not provide a clear deadline on when that would be achieved, leaving many questions about whether it would be reached before the next general election, due no later than 2029. 

Jones suggested the government would not want to commit to a deadline until it had completed its strategic defence review being led by former Labour minister and NATO head George Robertson. This review is set to assess the state of the armed forces, the threats the UK faces, and the military capabilities required to address them, and is due for completion in the spring of 2024.

The reluctance to commit to a firm timeline has raised some concerns among observers. While the government has taken steps toward recognizing that more needs to be spent on defence, there are signs it may not actually provide the resources, at least not in a timely way. 

One senior Whitehall source said: "It's not if, it's when, because the pressures are growing with the rising security threats across the world.". Furthermore, the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the U.S. was also perceived as another salient factor that would amplify the urgency for the UK to increase military spending.

Against this uncertainty, Conservative figures - such as the recently-appointed shadow foreign secretary, Dame Priti Patel - have called for the target of 2.5% to be reached by 2030. Patel also argued that to attain the target, the government should focus on making "efficiencies" and "changes around the performance of the civil service". She expressed concern over the UK's increasingly insecure geopolitical position by saying more was being called for to bolster the nation's defence capabilities.

Sir Tony Radakin seconded this by repeating that the government has to offset the national ambition against resources available. He further said that long-term stability and clarity of defence spending would help ensure that the UK military maintains readiness as threats increase.

The Ukraine Conflict: Wake-Up Call to UK Defence

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has acted as a poignant reminder of the need for strong military preparedness. 

Besides changing the dynamics of Europe's security, the conflict has also brought to the fore the vulnerabilities created by a lack of investment in defence. Sir Tony Radakin said that Russia had its catastrophic losses during the war. In October 2023 alone, it was reported that the military forces of Russia suffered approximately 1,500 dead and wounded every day. Some estimates have suggested that over the coming months, the total number of Russian casualties may exceed 700,000.

Nevertheless, Russia has continued to achieve tactical territorial gains and has put heavy pressure on Ukraine. Sir Tony pointed out that although the UK and its allies remained committed to supporting Ukraine for as long as necessary, such Russian military expenditure, now running at over 40 percent of public spending, has placed a significant drag on its economy. He said the continued Russian military aggression, along with the extraordinary price being paid by the Russian people, underlined the need for a resolute and unified Western response, of which the UK needed to be a part.

The UK has been at the forefront of supporting Ukraine, with almost £8 billion in military aid provided to date, including air defence missiles, drones, cruise missiles, and tanks, along with clothing and personal equipment. A report by the National Audit Office into the UK's financial commitments to Ukraine underlines the need for sustained support of the embattled nation. But this international support comes at a time when the UK's own armed forces are under strain due to tightening budgets and a lack of long-term financial planning.

The feeling of urgency is growing in the UK's defence community, with a number of calls for the country to ready itself against threats closer to home. The fact that the government has just included £3 billion funding for Ukraine as part of the defence budget was tantamount to a "cut" to the UK's military capability, warned former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. While the commitment to Ukraine was widely supported, Wallace added, the funding had to be looked at against the requirement to have resources earmarked for UK defense needs.

The Ukraine situation has indeed been a rude awakening for the UK, telling it very convincingly how much more is required to hike its defense spending. Now, the big question is whether the government will think it over and put things in order for the fulfillment of its commitments on both the national and international fronts.

Politics of Defence Spending: Domestic Challenges and External Pressures

Complementing the rise in external threats, the UK government also faces huge domestic political challenges on the issue of increasing spending on defence. 

Debating on how much to give the military brings up issues of public spending generally, where resources are competed for across sectors from healthcare to education. Treasury minister Darren Jones conceded that any rise in defence spending would involve "trade-offs" with other parts of public spending, forcing hard choices about where cuts might have to be made.

The debate is further complicated by the precarious fiscal position of the UK, weakened by the persistent economic squeeze. The former government minister showed frustration with many years of discussion that had been engaged on increasing defence spending, citing how very hard it was to order for the years ahead when the need was pressing. When the UK will reach the 2.5% target is unknown, and many believe such vagueness undermines the nation's long-term military readiness.

With the UK depending on the United States for security, this should be one of the major tests for Britain. During his campaigns, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, whose return to the office raised concerns across the Atlantic, urged European countries to increase their military spending. His previous administration leaned hard on NATO members to meet their 2%-of-GDP-spending target, and his return to power will almost certainly see renewed demands for Europe to shoulder more of the financial burden for its own defence. A source close to the UK government said, "it doesn't make sense for Europe's defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania," as there was a growing unease at the unpredictable nature of U.S. foreign policy.

This uncertainty over the U.S. commitment to NATO raises fundamental questions for European countries, especially the UK, given that it needs to consider the best way to ensure a strong security posture in an increasingly unstable global environment. 

Though the UK has strived to reinforce its defence cooperation with other NATO members, including a recent agreement with Germany, the question of greater European self-reliance with regard to defence spending is now more critical than ever.

The Imperative of Defence Reform: Efficiency and Procurement

Beyond the question of how much to spend, there is deep concern about how defence resources are apportioned. 

The MoD has consistently been castigated for inefficiencies and waste in its procurement processes. A consistent stream of high-profile examples of projects that have overrun and overspent has contributed to public frustration and skepticism about the effectiveness of spending on defense.

The growing pressure on the UK to increase its defence budget has slowly brought in the realization that merely spending more money will not be good enough. The MoD needs to ensure that the funds are used efficiently, and the procurement processes are smoothened out so that a wastage of resources is avoided. A number of insiders identified the support provided to Ukraine by the MoD, which has proved effective and rapid, as a model for the effective deployment of military resources in times of crisis. There is, nevertheless, skepticism about whether this degree of efficiency can be replicated consistently across the broader defence procurement system.

The most fundamental problem the MoD faces is that it naturally reaches for the technologically most advanced and usually most expensive bit of equipment, which often simply displaces practical and cost-effective solutions. One former minister maintained that what was required was an approach that would make current UK military equipment more lethal rather than reaching for a new and untried system. In this way, the military would not only maximize its resources but also further adapt to the changed nature of modern warfare.

For this reason, the UK government has recognized a need to reform defence procurement, hence making several attempts at centralizing decisions on purchasing and recruiting a new national armaments director to oversee the process. However, many are not optimistic that meaningful changes could really be implemented by the MoD because of the encumbrances of the system and also the embedded culture of waste.

---

Against the background of escalating threats right across the world, the UK is confronted with a very stark choice: either commit to a rise in Defence expenditure and reform the procurement process, or fall further behind in an increasingly unstable world. That means the UK's ability to protect its interests-both at home and abroad-depends on making necessary investments in military capabilities.

This is not an argument about the numbers; it is about the role of the UK in a changing world. The UK needs to be realistic about matching its ambition for international influence with the resources it gives to its armed forces. The UK must ensure that if it is to remain a global power, its armed forces are properly funded, resourced, and prepared for the challenges ahead.

The requirement for increased investment in defence is self-evident. As geopolitics continue to deteriorate, the UK must act now to secure a place in this changing global order. It is not whether more money should be spent on defence but how the UK can ensure that the spending is timely and efficient to prepare it for the challenges that lie ahead.