The politics of defense in a dangerous world

In the cool spring sunshine of a Polish military base, a noisy and smoky tank makes a 90-degree turn, the metal of its tracks scraping against the concrete.

War creatures had become the backdrop for defense policy.

A dangerous world collides with a general election year.

In the years following the Cold War, many Western countries have reaped peace dividends.

A safer world, the logic went, meant that money previously spent on soldiers, warplanes, and aircraft carriers could instead be spent on health care or schools.

Or taxes could be reduced.

But how things have changed.

There are conflicts in the Middle East. And war in Europe.

Rishi Sunak traveled here to meet his Polish counterpart Donald Tusk and the Secretary General of the NATO defense alliance, Jens Stoltenberg.

But the Prime Minister also came here with an announcement in his pocket.

Someone who is aware of the threats Britain faces internationally, and the domestic threats it faces politically.

And when you talk about a spending commitment, who better to lead than Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Defense Secretary Grant Shapps?

Sunak said he wants to increase defense spending to 2.5 percent of national income by 2030.

The government estimates that this would amount to an additional £75 billion in additional defense spending between now and the end of the decade.

The Prime Minister is wrapping the plan in grand rhetoric, and yes, if implemented, it would amount to a significant increase in defense spending.

And, he claims, it is “fully funded, with no increase in loans or debt.”

Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that “this is a large spending commitment,” adding: “There are no signs that the overall spending plans have been replenished.

“So it implicitly comes from other areas. Unprotected public services now face cuts of around 4% per year after 2025.”

Then enter Labour. A central part of Sir Keir Starmer’s attempt to reinvent his party has been to cloak himself in the union flag (or even the St. George’s flag for St. George’s Day) and emphasize his involvement in the armed forces.

He is depicted in combat gear.

He emphasized Labour’s commitment to NATO.

A big contrast with Jeremy Corbyn.

‘Political arms race’

But on funding, his promise is not as concrete as the Conservatives’.

Labor has pledged to increase defense spending to 2.5% of national income if “resources permit”.

How will they react now, after being outflanked by the Conservatives?

In the hours immediately following the Prime Minister’s speech, shadow cabinet ministers appeared uncertain.

But the fact that Westminster’s two main parties are engaged in a political arms race on defense tells you quite a bit of what you need to know about the state of the world.

‘It costs money to have Russia as a neighbor.

“There is no way we can run away from those costs. You have to pay. We must understand that the most expensive alternative is to let Putin win in Ukraine, because then we will live in a much more dangerous world,” NATO said. The Secretary General told me.

Yes, the leader of a defense alliance will probably always want more money for their cause.

But it’s a sobering observation.