With current and past leaders of the armed services joining the Americans in calling for ever greater percentages of national income to be devoted to defence, some hardheaded thinking is going to be needed (Starmer will go in ‘bin of history’ if he fails to raise defence budget, says ex-army chief, 15 February).
Unless defence spending contributes to growth, we could have the absurd situation of increasing the proportion of GDP spent on defence without any material increase in the actual amount available; 2.5% of substantial growth is better than 3% of an economy flatlining.
We must also surely want a national debate on the kind of defence spending we want – matching a very different threat to that experienced in the 20th century and requiring not necessarily more personnel, but greater creativity and skill in combating the threat of the future.
Above all, however, we should have a national debate about what other key services are going to be denied investment as a consequence of the ever-increasing demand to combat a real or perceived threat from the Russian federation. Protecting our own democracy and social cohesion, to parody the words of Marco Rubio, requires us to protect what we hold dear if we are to retain consent for protecting the people of eastern Europe and beyond.
David Blunkett
Labour, House of Lords
• The solution to the European security crisis does not lie in increased military spending (Trump’s return means UK must swiftly find a way to increase defence spending, 16 February) or a Eurobomb (As the US retreats, Europe must look out for itself – so is Macron’s nuclear offer the answer?, 17 February). This discredited thinking has already taken us to the precipice: 89 seconds to midnight, according to the Doomsday Clock.
Moreover, the US and European thinktanks that are advocating this path are largely funded by and work in the interest of the military industrial complex, as detailed in recent research by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Their outputs should be treated with the same degree of scepticism as the disinformation from Russian and Chinese troll factories.
Europe is strong today because it has kept arms at bay and democratic politics is its first line of defence. A future European security policy should be centred on international law, inclusive diplomacy, conventional non-offensive defence, strengthened societal resilience and support for the international ban on nuclear weapons. These policies won’t cost the earth; the alternatives just might.
Ian Davis Founder, Nato Watch
Richard Reeve Coordinator, Rethinking Security
Paul Rogers Emeritus professor of peace studies, Bradford University
• I feel as if I am now living in a parallel universe (Trump calls Zelenskyy a dictator amid fears of irreconcilable rift, 19 February). Trump, who still asserts he won the 2020 election, who asserts that the courts cannot restrict what he does, who bans books he does not like, who tells the FBI and Department of Justice to go after his enemies, who effectively sacks anyone involved in investigating his past nefarious activities, who bans news outlets from White House briefings and who overrules Congress’s funding of aid, tells me Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a dictator. He prefers Vladimir Putin, who, presumably, won his election fairly. It is well beyond satire or parody and should be called out by all British politicians who value democracy.
Ian Henderson
Nottingham
• Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “a modestly successful comedian”, says a has-been reality TV host.
Ruth Blunt
Northolt, London
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
