Skip to main content
The Morning Star Shop
Oppose military spending increases - defend living standards
A statement by No Cold War
Flags of Nato member states fly at Nato headquarters

IT IS OF immense concern that the British government has succumbed to the demands of the Trump administration and agreed to increase military spending from 2 to 2.5 per cent of GDP in 2027 and then to 3 per cent in the next parliament.

This at a time when poverty is rising and deepening in Britain with one in three children and a quarter of adults living in poverty. So far, our government has not taken measures to alleviate these conditions and indeed attacks on welfare are set to continue.

Already, most pensioners have lost the winter fuel allowance and the two-child limit on benefits remains in place. Disabled people are being threatened with £5 billion cuts. Inflation is threatening to rise again under the pressure of water, energy and other costs under conditions where the level of wage rises are already falling. This will hit all workers, and particularly lower-paid ones. And government funding to tackle climate change is minimal.

A rise in military spending requires a transfer of resources and the government plans to achieve the 2027 increase in part by cutting the international aid budget. The remainder will need to come from other departments’ budgets. Moreover, military spending, unlike other spending, produces little benefit to the overall economy.

Analysis shows that military spending creates far fewer jobs than spending in other sectors. Spending on health, for example, is two-and-a-half times more job-rich than military spending.

These attacks on Britain’s population fit in with a reactionary and dangerous foreign policy of the US administration. For now, Donald Trump will continue with his “ambiguity and deception” narrative as he attempts to increase economic growth at home — something he knows is essential. At the same time, he will put huge pressure on Europe and other allies to increase their own “defence spending.”

Trump’s Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has made clear that the US military’s priority is not the situation in Europe but with China. He has told the US’s European allies that they must take the lead in Europe and increase their military spending to the levels called for by Trump.

Trump needs the war with Russia and the Ukraine to end because Nato is losing it. Instead of trying to secure long-term peace, though, he is calling for European states to build up their military arsenals for a future return to stepping up conflict with Russia.

Most west European states agree with his call for military spending to dramatically increase. For them, conflict with Russia has become a priority. Britain, France, Germany and others are already stepping up their preparations for war.

Europe’s Ursula Von Der Leyen is also running a lie on a par with the one about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It is that Russia is a threat to Europe. That is nonsense. The ratio of current military spending by European Nato members to that of Russia is 3.5 to 1.

In response to Trump’s demands the proposed increase to EU military spending to €800 billion raises that ratio to 9 to 1. On that basis Russia is in no position to attack Europe and has repeatedly said that it would be absurd and that it has no intention of doing so.

The United States will undoubtedly prioritise projecting power into the “Indo-Pacific” and will likely relocate forces it intends to pull out of Europe, and will continue to extend its already vast number of military bases in the region.

The proposed increases in military spending will undermine European economies and disadvantage populations. In addition the increases will be accompanied by scapegoating and promotion of racist ideas, leading to increased authoritarianism and support for the far right.

Trump’s call for European Nato countries to increase military spending should be rejected. Instead, Britain and others should seek or support a resolution of the conflict between Nato  and Russia. Security guarantees, mutual agreements and treaties, not an arms race, should be negotiated to create the basis for lasting peace in Europe.

Hundreds of thousands of people have already died in the US/Nato war in Ukraine against Russia. Enough is enough. Nothing good will come from raising spending on preparations for war. Securing peace and protecting living standards should be the priority.

For more information and debates visit www.nocoldwar.org

 

The 95th Anniversary Appeal
Support the Morning Star
You have reached the free limit.
Subscribe to continue reading.
Similar stories
Defence ministers (L to R) ) Romania’s Angel Tilvar, Estonia’s Hanno Pevkur, Luxembourg’s Yuriko Backes, Belgium’s Theo Francken and Germany’s Boris Pistorius and Bulgaria’s Atanas Zapryanov at a meeting of EU defence ministers at the European Council building in Brussels on May 20 2025
Militarism / 31 May 2025
31 May 2025

In the conclusion of his two-part article, PETER MERTENS reveals that while global military spending hits $2.7 trillion with European arms company profits soaring 1,000%, €1 invested in hospitals creates 2.5 times more jobs than weapons

 

 

MARCHING EAST: German soldiers march at the formal inauguration of a German brigade for Nato’s eastern flank Lithuania, Thursday May 22
Features / 29 May 2025
29 May 2025

In the first half of a two-part article, PETER MERTENS looks at how Nato’s €800 billion ‘Readiness 2030’ plan serves Washington’s pivot to the Pacific, forcing Europeans to dismantle social security and slash pensions to fund it

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with French President Emmanu
Features / 7 March 2025
7 March 2025
CARLOS MARTINEZ condemns Europe’s failure to develop genuine autonomy from US hegemony, as leaders like Starmer and Macron cling to a declining imperial order rather than building good relations with the emerging powers
United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks durin
Opinion / 18 February 2025
18 February 2025
By honestly telling Ukraine that it will not become a Nato member, Trump and Hegseth have opened the door to a possible end to the conflict but have also altered the political dynamic on both sides of the Atlantic, write MEDEA BENJAMIN and NICOLAS JS DAVIES