Last week’s Munich Security Conference marked the moment when the US told Europe emphatically that it could not rely on transatlantic support. Vice-President JD Vance’s diatribe at the event, in which he railed against the alleged cultural decline of Europe and the UK, powerfully illustrated this sudden dislocation between Washington and European capitals.
It is right for the UK to now step in and take a leading role defending Ukraine and the continent: it is one of Europe’s few full-spectrum military powers, Europe contains its closest trading partners, and the region is key to UK security.
There are five areas the UK should now prioritize to support this effort:
Defence spending – 2.5 per cent and more
For the UK to take a credible leadership position, it must commit to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by the next financial year – and to raising it thereafter.
The UK’s forthcoming Strategic Defence Review, led by Lord Robertson, was already expected to state an urgent case for higher defence spending – repeating the point made by a Lords report in autumn 2024 that the UK has sufficient ammunition for only two and a half days of intense fighting.
Recruitment, investment and procurement – including from the US – need to be shaped into a coherent plan. More than that, the UK needs to reorient away from the assumptions that underpinned the war on terror: expeditionary combat against non-state enemies, frequently complementing a larger US military presence.
European thinking on financing defence spending
How to fund that increased spending is a problem the UK shares with its fellow European countries. For many – including probably the UK – it will mean more borrowing.
Countries which have spent years enjoying the benefits of the peace dividend, in effect taking money out of defence budgets to pay for health services, welfare and pensions, may look to tilt back the other way. But that is a tough political challenge which will take years, even decades to realize.
In the short term, many will look to borrow more. The UK government, operating under tight (though self-imposed) fiscal rules, is well placed to help steer a discussion about ways of doing this that would not send interest rates jumping up.
Essentially, that means convincing capital markets that the money is earmarked for defence – not general government spending. The EU overall might look to loosen the fiscal rules under which it has been operating for more than a decade – but this is also a dilemma for nation states beyond the EU.
London is already proving a magnet for many early-stage informal conversations about whether this might be done with defence bonds, defence development banks, pooled borrowing or other schemes.
Contributing to a peacekeeping force in Ukraine
However, a sustained military commitment requires more than new spending. UK troop numbers are a significant concern that cannot be resolved overnight.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has now stated that he would be prepared to station British troops in Ukraine, even if the requirements of the commitment are still unclear (and even if it is uncertain what make-up of peacekeeping force can be agreed). This is the right move, if he wants the UK to have influence. Yet a deployment by the UK is far from straightforward.
The UK does not have enough troops to sustain the likely contribution it would need to make in the long term. Former military chiefs such as Lord Dannatt have questioned the British army’s ability to muster even 10,000 troops for Ukraine – where Kyiv says a total force of more than 100,000 will be needed. To address manpower concerns, the UK will need to overcome difficult, longstanding problems with recruitment and retention.
