Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Your customers are scrolling past your social ads, using ad blockers, and paying for ad-free streaming. But when they're listening to a podcast, they're hearing Acast ads, which are 4.4 times more engaging than with display ads. So if you want real attention, start advertising on podcasts with Acast. Start today at go.acast.com slash ads.
Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Stuart Willey and Alex Dibble. The UK Prime Minister says Russia is a menace, needing a generational response. In Parliament, he announced billions of pounds in extra defence spending, pushing it to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. I've long argued that in the face of ongoing generational challenges...
All European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. So, subject to economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
Sokia Stama called it the biggest sustained investment since the end of the Cold War, hailing it as needed to provide the deterrence that would bring peace to Ukraine. At the same time, German lawmakers are said to be rushing through a 200 billion euro boost to defence spending. But none of these moves will bring it up to the 5% of GDP that Donald Trump has been calling for, or the more than 6% that Russia spends.
To talk us through what it could all mean, our guest today is Hamish de Breton-Gordon, a long-time British Army officer, a chemical weapons specialist and a defence commentator. Hamish, a bump in UK spending to 2.5% or indeed 2.6% by one measure by 2027, is it enough?
Well, we shall see if it's enough. I think it is very welcome. It sends a strong message to Moscow and the Kremlin and Putin. I'm sure when he looked west,
On the 24th of February 2022, he didn't see a conventional deterrence and certainly not from the United Kingdom. I think it also sends a strong message to Kiev and to President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine that Britain, quite apart from giving them some weapons and all the rest of it,
are actually now prepared to make sure that their military is up to the threat of Putin and up to the ability to do something. And I suppose it might sound rather trite to say, most importantly, no doubt that this is aimed at President Trump, who Starmer is going to see on Thursday, who has been saying that Putin
countries like Britain and other European NATO countries need to spend a lot more. He said 5% on defence and America will no longer underwrite or pay for our security. So in a whole host of ways, I think it's very welcome, whether it's enough, the 3% in the next parliament is probably closer to the...
area required, but also the additional money for the intelligence services, although it's only 1.1%, actually is pretty significant. And we punch way above our weight in the intelligence world. And if we want real leverage with the Americans and Trump,
this is an area where even Trump will understand that they cannot afford not to have the Brits involved because this is the stuff we're very good at. So it's a good start, I think. Depending on who you listen to, this is between £6 and £14 billion a year. How much could that buy the British Armed Forces? How much stronger will they be as a result of this extra spending?
Well, I think there are a number of things to look at. And, you know, the money is, yeah, it sounds vast. But as you say, it's not vast, not when you consider, you know, quite how expensive some of these capabilities are. But having said that, it's not insignificant. One thing that Britain has lost is
since the end of the Cold War, was mass, mass of manpower, mass of capability. And it's something that we have now learned from the Ukraine war that you do need a bit of mass. So that hopefully will allow us to do that.
we're also well aware that we've run down our stocks of ammunition in particular and some of the smart military capabilities like storm shadow cruise missiles that have proved so effective. So purely refilling our ammunition bunkers and making sure we've got enough storm shadow and other capable missiles, making sure we've got enough air defence. Air defence is something that
When I was still in the army in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, air defence was not a big deal because it wasn't a big threat. It is now and we don't have very much of it. So actually that $4 billion to $6 billion per year for the next few years will allow us to regrow some capability. It's also very clear that the Ministry of Defence is pretty inefficient now.
We've probably got a lot of stuff that we don't really need. And the Strategic Defence Review, again, we learned from Prime Minister today, we're going to get an update in a few months on what it's going to look at. And hopefully there is the opportunity to get rid of some of the expensive capabilities we don't need.
But I think psychologically, it is a very significant move today. Whether an extra five or six billion a year is going to push the dial when we look at pure materiel, tanks and aircraft, that's perhaps debatable. But the key thing is it's going in the right direction and hopefully sending out the right messages on both sides of the Atlantic.
Some on this side of the Atlantic fear that President Trump and his administration are less interested in defending Europe going forward. Friedrich Merz in Germany called for independence from the US because he thinks the Americans don't care about Europe anymore. Poland's prime minister says European leaders are going to meet in London on Sunday. Was Kirstein right to say NATO will continue to be the bedrock, as he put it, of our security?
I think he is. Absolutely. But I also think, and he did mention in his speech in Parliament today, that there would be a new European alliance, military alliance. Now, whether he is suggesting there will be a sort of a European NATO alliance or something new, I'm not entirely sure.
But I think it would be illogical and naive of European countries to discard America. American power, military power, you know, overmatches everybody else significantly, including the Chinese and way above the Russians. So I think that would be the wrong thing to do. And
if we might not have so many thousands of Americans sort of stationed in Europe, but really we still need their air power in particular and their intelligence networks to back things up. And if the cost of that is for the rest of us to spend a bit more on our defense, and I think Trump's always said it, why should the American taxpayer pay to defend Europe and the UK? I mean, it's a fair point.
I might be being naive, but I don't think Trump's looking to completely cut the UK and Europe off. He is far more inward looking than perhaps his predecessors and wants to spend money elsewhere and probably, as importantly, wants to do deals and be seen to do deals. So I think we will focus more on Europe, but I think we will discard the US, probably something we want to avoid if at all possible.
Hamish, what can we make of the U.S. siding with North Korea, with Iran, with Russia at the U.N. last night on those resolutions that were due to condemn Russian aggression? The U.S. voted against the U.K., France and the countries we think of as the West.
Yeah, I mean, the UN vote yesterday is very difficult to understand. What on earth did Trump think he would get advantage? You know, he seems to be handing all the cards to Putin at this critical stage and to not agree with the rest of the world that, you know, it is Putin's fault. He is the aggressor.
And to side with, you know, the axis of evil of Iran and North Korea. I mean, it seems bonkers. I mean, even the Chinese abstained. You know, maybe there is some brilliant move in there, but I just don't see it. It is really, you know, enraged Europe. Maybe we're going to see an about turn at the end of the week and we'll all be bonkers.
praising Trump and all the rest of it. But these things, so many of these decisions have such a psychological impact and people make decisions based on how they're feeling. It seems that that decision would have been much warmly received in Moscow than it is in European capitals. But one cannot
in any vestige see why America would want to ally up and cozy up to the Russians and
rather than Ukrainians. After all, the transactional deal that Trump seems to be offering to Ukraine is $600 billion worth of rare earth minerals, which doesn't seem to be a very good deal from the Ukrainian perspective to me. But if that is what brings in the American military heft, then it's something one will have to consider, I expect.
Hamish, thank you. Hamish de Breton-Gordon is the defence commentator and former British Army officer. As Stuart mentioned, Keir Starmer is heading to Washington to meet Donald Trump later this week. Do go back and listen to yesterday's episode where we looked at Emmanuel Macron's meeting with Trump, Keir Starmer's upcoming one as well, into what the European leaders are really, really trying to do with their trips to Washington.
That is it from us, though. Thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. We'll see you tomorrow.
You're free now. Free to fill your feed with impossibly chonky chonkers who chonk harder than you ever thought possible. Cats, corgis, babies, baby penguins, baby pandas, chunky baby pandas. Free to make your smart devices do silly things. Free to open a world of remote work and a portal into gametopia. Who's the boss now? Free to be everything you imagine and then some. That's how it feels to have quantum fiber internet.
Do you remember the brand that popped up while you were scrolling your social feed? No? But I bet you remember who sponsors your favorite podcast. That's because 74% of listeners recall the brands they hear when listening to podcasts.
If you want your business to be top of mind, podcast advertising with ACAST is the way to go. Book your campaign today by visiting go.acast.com slash ads.