Starmer’s announcement to increase military spending to 2.5% by 2027 – an additional £13.4 billion annually – at the expense of overseas aid, reflects a Trump-style of international priorities: driving war and militarism whilst abandoning international obligations to halt global hunger and climate devastation. It represents a much more dangerous and damaging role for Britain in the world.
The spending announcement has clearly been rapidly organised ahead of Starmer’s meeting with Trump on Thursday. Nailing his colours very firmly to the Trump mast, Starmer reasserted Britain’s special relationship with the US, and pledged to increase military spending to 3% of GDP after the next election.
These increases are to fund a reckless war drive that risks plunging Europe into decades-long confrontation with Russia, whilst ratcheting up nuclear tensions globally.
Presenting Britain as the European leadership in NATO, Starmer reiterated his so-called peace-keeping operation in a post-settlement Ukraine. In it, 30,000 European troops would be deployed to Ukraine, underwritten by US military might should the ceasefire collapse. The plan has failed to win unity across Europe.
Meanwhile Friedrich Merz, the newly elected Germany Chancellor, has called for France and Britain to share their nuclear weapons to ‘defend’ Europe against Russia. This has also renewed the debate about the use of tactical or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons – and whether Britain should develop them on behalf of Europe.
These reckless and terrifying debates around greater nuclear armament for Europe fail to note that Trump has made no statement that US nuclear weapons will be withdrawn from Europe. Or that new ‘battlefield’ nuclear bombs won’t be deployed in Britain. They also fail to acknowledge that, as Britain is totally dependent on the US for its nuclear weapons system, Starmer would have to get permission from Trump if he were to offer them to Europe.
But, of course, whether US, French or British, nuclear weapons deployed in Europe are a disaster. Far from offering protection, the weapons are a constant threat – from the risk of nuclear accidents to nuclear confrontation.
This obscene spending spree on weapons of war won’t bring peace to Ukraine. On the contrary, the $138.7bn that Europe has pledged to Ukraine since 2022 has contributed to prolonging this terrible conflict, sustaining the huge death toll and pushing the region to the brink of nuclear war. And the impact of the conflict has driven the worsening economic crisis in Britain, across Europe and globally. And if Trump gets his way, the majority of Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth will be siphoned off to the US.
Whilst it is presented as defending Ukraine, this NATO war drive is global. We know that Trump’s ‘America First’ policies are still about maintaining US dominance over the rest of the world. From calls to seize Greenland, Canada and Panama, to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, Trump has no respect for sovereignty, human rights and international law. His plans to expand the US Missile Defence System, or ‘the Iron Dome for America’, would enable the Trump administration to use its nuclear weapons without fear of a retaliatory strike. British bases already play a central role in this ‘Iron Dome for America’, making us a target in any global confrontation, yet offering no protection.
This is a very chilling prospect.
Instead of vying for Trump’s approval over which NATO state can increase its military spending highest, Britain and Europe should instead be using this opportunity to reshape the region’s security approach, towards one that is genuinely sustainable and secure. This means Britain ending its military and nuclear alliance with the US. A first step in this would be to scrap the replacement of Britain’s nuclear weapons system. With the government’s own watchdog concluding that the replacement is ‘unachievable’, Rachel Reeves should cut her losses and direct the hundreds of billions into rebuilding crumbling public services and investing in sustainable energy sources.