Keir Starmer has made his position clear: Britain must rearm. His justification? Europe, he says, faces an “existential” crisis. His solution? A sharp increase in military spending, borrowing straight from Washington’s playbook with the familiar slogan: “peace through strength.”
But let’s cut through the rhetoric. Is this really about Britain’s security, or is it about maintaining favour with the US? And more importantly, who’s footing the bill?
The Cost of Loyalty
For years, the US has pushed Britain to dig deeper into its defence budget. Now, with Donald Trump shaking up transatlantic relations, Starmer has responded with a pledge: an extra £6bn annually in military spending from 2027. The catch? The money will come from direct cuts to overseas aid. And if that’s not enough, the government has hinted at reductions to health and disability benefits to make up the shortfall.
This isn’t just about keeping the economy ticking with defence contracts either, military spending supports just 0.83% of UK jobs, making it irrelevant to most of the population. This is about geopolitics. Starmer is positioning Britain as Trump’s key European ally, ensuring the UK remains Washington’s junior partner in global military operations.
Following the US Playbook
Starmer’s rhetoric borrows heavily from past US interventions, even referring to a “coalition of the willing” in Ukraine, echoing the infamous Iraq War messaging. His vision isn’t about creating an independent European defence strategy; it’s about ensuring Britain plays its part in America’s military dominance.
Britain’s armed forces have long operated as an expeditionary force rather than a defensive one. Since 2001, over a quarter of a million British troops have deployed in support of the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that cost up to 491,000 lives and left millions more suffering.
Fast forward to today, and Britain remains entwined in controversial operations. Since October 2023, UK-controlled territory in Cyprus has been used as a US-led hub for military cargo, directly supporting Israel’s campaign in Gaza. Meanwhile, British surveillance aircraft have flown over Gaza more frequently than either the US or Israel, according to flight data.
Military Presence Over Public Interest
Starmer’s spending plans ignore the fact that Britain’s military infrastructure isn’t focused on defending its own borders. It’s about global power projection.
- Britain is set to pay £9bn to Mauritius to lease the Chagos Islands for a shared base with the US.
- New naval bases in Oman and Bahrain support UK aircraft carrier deployments in the Asia-Pacific.
- The UK will pour £117.8bn into nuclear weapons over the next decade, despite relying on the US to use them.
The latest defence strategy demands a “global response force” capable of deploying anywhere at a moment’s notice. This isn’t about strengthening European security; it’s about ensuring Britain’s place at the table in future US-led interventions.
The Public’s Take: A “Falklands Moment” or Misplaced Priorities?
Some see this as a defining moment, akin to the Falklands War, which reshaped British politics in the 1980s. The government’s militaristic stance has resonated with certain voters, over 40% of Britons support increasing military spending, even if it means higher taxes or cuts to public services.
But this support may be fleeting. A recent poll suggests that, when faced with tough choices, Britons prioritise public services over military expansion. With Washington now steering towards a potential Ukraine peace deal, will Starmer’s war drums still sound convincing when the economic toll becomes clear?
One thing’s for sure: the cuts required to fund this military expansion are coming. Green energy investment is now in the firing line, sacrificed in favour of maintaining Britain’s global military footprint.
The Real Question
So, where does this leave Britain? Are we bolstering security, or are we simply keeping Washington happy at our own expense? With the NHS under pressure, public services stretched thin, and climate policies sidelined, Starmer’s military-first agenda is a gamble.
And as history has shown, following America into war has rarely ended well for Britain.
