Lock the editor’s digest lock for free
Roula Khalaf, the editor of FT, selects his favorite story in this week’s newsletter.
Mercury Donald Trump may be so, but he has a gift to change the discussion. And sometimes he is right. In terms of defense spending, the only surprise is how long a European NATO member has made the US taxpayers free.
Europe has been resumed, not just for the fear that Trump is seeking to spend 5 % of GDP in a NATO Summit to defend GDP. The Russian nuclear rhetoric, cyber attacks, obstruction of the Baltic Sea submarine cable, and the vast new military command center in China, Ursla von del Rayen, the European Commission Committee last year, “the world is rough.” It indicates what you said.
Russian neighbors have increased their games for a while. Poland’s military spending is already 4 % of GDP, and its troops are currently the third largest in NATO. In Sweden, all households have recently received the government’s leaflet in the case of crisis and war, and advised on how to store an emergency evacuation and how to store food if power failed.
In the UK, the threat still feels far. The government refuses to meet the goal of raising the goal of raising defense spending from 2.3 % to 2.5 %, fearing deep reductions that are not popular elsewhere elsewhere. But time is not on that side.
There are still good stories to the UK. Our special units, Intelligence news agencies, and nuclear deterrence are powerful cards for London in the relationship between Brussels and Washington. We played a leadership in the joint expedition between NATO members in the North European and East Europe, provided nuclear attack submarines to Australia through the aurician partnership with the United States, part of the global combat air partnership. Build a next -generation war plane. With Italy and Japan.
However, without the appropriate funding, these involvement accelerates excessive expansion. Defense experts repeat the phrase called “dumb”. The United Kingdom depends on the glossy Totemic kit, a trident airline, and projects the basis of muscles that are no longer available.
Even 2.3 % are not visible at all because they contain pensions. Due to the lack of repair docks, a new “hunter killer” submarine is stuck at the port. General Patrick Sanders, a former chief of the former staff, has warned that the UK has no longer possible to launch a kind of strategy in southern Iraqi in 2003. A year ago, the Defense Selection Committee complained that it would not be possible to properly judge British Britain. Because it is ready, the Ministry of Defense is much more confidential than the NATO allies.
Prime Minister Keel is waiting for the spring strategic defense examination. The reviewers include Fiona Hill, an advisor to a former White House, which was once described as Trump’s “Deep State State with a nice accent” (she is from Darram County). Hill knows Trump’s maximum position than most people. Her memoirs complained that he quoted the president in his first semester and criticized his threat to leaving NATO, “I’m ruining my leverage.”
However, even if Trump settles like 3.5 %, the UK is still amending. Priority is now necessary to decide what kind of envelope to be spent on the reviewer. Some of the workers back ventures warn you that the design is a serious mistake. All members or voters do not support the reduction of transportation to provide funds for defense. However, after all, few people want the Ukraine to disappoint Ukraine.
The UK is currently facing an existing question. Will we continue to be a serious player, or will we speak a big game while the resources are decreasing and expose to the power of the potemysin? There is always a difference in opinion behind the scenes, whether to fight the “last war” or the next war. However, it has been suggested that winning in Ukraine requires both state -of -the -art technology and conventional weapons to win. And the public is important: from the perspective of the army, tanks, and artillery. The ceasefire assumed by the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is likely to require a European ally for a while to maintain a frozen zone between Ukraine and Russia.
There is always a tension between various armed services. However, without a larger financial envelope, it is unlikely that the UK will continue to be a serious player on both land and the sea.
Financial constraints make this a hell -like situation for the government. Prime Minister Rachel Reeves did not mention defense in growth this week, which is the center of industrial strategy, and is natural. The Ministry of Defense has not disclosed a complete analysis of places to procure weapons, but knows that some of the F-35 fighters are being done here. According to Bae Systems, a typhoon weapon system donated £ 1.4 billion to the British economy in export sales. The industry supports suppliers’ ecosystems that contribute to regeneration.
Behind the scenes, both London and Brussels had a lobby activity to exempt defense from financial rules for national security reasons. This seems to be unlikely to appeal to Reeves.
However, there is another challenge from a call to boycott the defense industry. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled the conservative government attempts at the time, trying to stop selling local government pension systems from defense after the actions taken by the Palestinian solidarity campaign. Many local governments have dumped defense shares.
The successive governments performed a delicate dance of defense veil in an attempt to maintain fame while defeating resources. But the music is now stopped. The decision that Reeves and Starmer will lose in the next few months will affect the British alliance, our recognized status, and our own awareness.
camilla.cavendish@ft.com