It has been reported that Spain has been the only member holding out against the plan – which would meet the demand made by Donald Trump at the end of last year. It could be formally unveiled at a meeting of Nato defence ministers over the next week.
“We initially thought Trump’s talk of 5 per cent before taking office was just a hardline ploy to push the rest of us up to 3 per cent,” one Nato official told The i Paper.
Whether it actually reaches 5 per cent in Britain by 2032 seems far from certain. Defence Secretary John Healey has only just, on Friday, apparently hardened up the Government’s “ambition” to reach a much more modest 3 per cent by 2034, saying he had “no doubt” the UK would get there.
You might expect the extra billions to be unadulterated good news for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as it prepares for tomorrow’s announcement of the UK’s Strategic Defence Review.
And while that, in itself, may be no mean feat, other issues could be harder to resolve.
Politics of buying more arms as you cut benefits
However, for some a big boost might still sit uncomfortably against the backdrop of Sir Keir Starmer’s Government cutting benefits and other public spending.
Recent MoD history is littered with examples of multi-billion pound deals where the value for money offered by the end result has been questionable.
An Ajax armoured vehicle takes part in trials and development tests at Bovington Camp, near Wool in February 2023 (Photo: Toby Melville/Reuters)
Meanwhile, the first of what was supposed to be hundreds of Ajax armoured vehicles were only delivered this year, eight years late and around £1.5bn over budget.
“For countries like Britain, who want to be on the cutting edge of defence technology, there will always be a risk of higher spend than for countries who are happy to be middling military powers,” says Tom Waldwyn from the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
The problems can beyond the very high-profile errors of judgment. There are pitfalls that could lead to wasteful spending riddled throughout almost all areas of defence procurement.
“Currently we have a situation where British-made Brimstone missiles cannot be fired by American-made F-35s or from Apache helicopters. Inconsistencies like these make it more likely that we have to buy duplicate equipment or adapt what we have, which takes time and money. So, when you are talking about boosting the budget this much, that creates potential for a lot of waste.”
F35 fighters cannot fire British-made Brimstone missiles (Photo: Richard Pohle/The Times/PA)It also included the enormous costs of maintaining the nuclear deterrent, which many in the armed forces privately criticise as it can take money away from frontline services. And that was when the Nato target was only 2 per cent.
Jump to 5% expected to lead to creative accounting
“I wouldn’t be surprised if some countries start to include general infrastructure spending, using the logic that roads and railways are needed to transport weapons, as an example,” he says.
“More money might go to housing, salaries, or pensions. These are absolutely important for morale and retention, but they don’t directly boost frontline readiness.”
How to avoid bad buys
“That might mean donating conventional ammunition hardware to Ukraine while focussing on things like sensors and cyber security at home, rather than more frigates and tanks.”
With European security in the worst place it’s been for decades, a boost to the national defence budget might at first glance seem like a godsend for Starmer. However, between domestic pressure on public spending and demands from allies to meet this new target, the risk of throwing good money after bad ideas will be greater than any time this century.
“This investment will make Britain stronger and safer in an insecure world and will help us build a modern and resilient Armed Forces, with cutting-edge capabilities.”
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( ‘More ships, no sailors’: Why Trump’s 5% defence demand is a problem for the UK )
Also on site :