Keir Starmer’s announcement to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 — an additional £13.4 billion annually — marks a dangerous shift towards war and militarism, echoing Trumpism. This increase comes at the cost of overseas aid, ditching international efforts to combat global hunger and climate devastation.
The timing of this announcement, just before Starmer’s meeting with Trump, was no accident. Eager to reaffirm the so-called special relationship with the US, Starmer hinted at pushing military spending even further to 3% after the next election. This escalation not only risks deeper conflict with Russia but also further intensifies global nuclear tensions.
Trying to position Britain as a leading force within NATO, Starmer proposed a 'peacekeeping' mission for a post-settlement Ukraine, involving 30,000 European troops, with US military backing if a ceasefire fails. Yet, the plan has failed to gain widespread support across Europe. At the same time, Germany’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has called for Britain and France to share nuclear weapons to 'protect' Europe — reviving the dangerous debate about developing so-called 'tactical' nuclear arms. These proposals overlook a crucial point: Britain’s nuclear arsenal relies entirely on US technology, meaning Starmer would need Trump’s permission to offer any part of it to Europe.
But whether nuclear weapons belong to the US, Britain, or France, their presence in Europe is a threat, not a safeguard. They heighten the risk of catastrophic accidents and escalate the chance of conflict, rather than deterring it.
Throwing billions into military expansion will not bring peace to Ukraine. Since 2022, Europe has committed $138.7bn in support — prolonging the war, worsening the human toll, and driving the region closer to nuclear disaster. This conflict has also fuelled the wider economic crisis, with consequences felt not just in Europe but globally. If Trump’s influence grows, Ukraine’s vast mineral resources could end up enriching US interests rather than aiding its recovery.
Despite claims of defending Ukraine, NATO’s actions reflect a broader agenda — reinforcing US global dominance. Trump's push to expand the US Missile Defence System, the so-called 'Iron Dome for America,' would allow the US to launch nuclear strikes without fear of retaliation. British military bases, central to this system, make the UK a target in any global conflict while offering no real protection.
Instead of competing to outspend each other on weapons, Britain and Europe should rethink their approach to security. This means stepping away from military dependence on the US. A practical first step would be scrapping the costly and unrealistic Trident nuclear weapons replacement. Even the government's own watchdog has warned it's unachievable — Rachel Reeves should redirect these funds into rebuilding public services and investing in renewable energy.
Starmer's military spending spree echoes Trump’s demand for Europe to shoulder more of its 'defence' costs. But let’s be clear — US military bases in Europe exist to serve American interests, not protect European nations. Even if Trump shifts his strategy, those bases are unlikely to close. Meanwhile, Starmer’s plan to push defence spending to 2.6% of GDP within two years and 3% soon after will be paid for by cutting overseas aid and squeezing working-class services like healthcare and education.
Ultimately, this war cannot continue without US military support. Starmer and Macron’s talk of standing by Ukraine rings hollow now that Trump is pressuring Zelensky into peace talks with Russia. The reality is that the US is pivoting towards direct dealings with Russia, seeing it as a step towards confronting their larger rival — China. Europe is left scrambling for relevance, talking peace while arming for war.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong, but the fearmongering from Western leaders paints a distorted picture. Russia’s economy is comparable to Spain’s, and it has occupied less than a fifth of Ukraine. The idea that Putin could mount a full-scale invasion of Europe is pure fantasy. Yet establishment figures cynically invoke the Second World War — referencing Churchill and Munich — not to promote peace but to justify rearmament.
Starmer is emerging as a leading voice in this dangerous new arms race. The working class will pay the price — with deteriorating public services and rising taxes — all to maintain Britain's standing in the imperialist order. This path doesn’t make us safer; it fuels global instability.
It’s time to demand investment in peacebuilding, not more warfare.
Comments