Fewer spectacles have been as disheartening as Monday night’s Paris summit. The leaders of Europe’s once-mighty military powers gathered in a desperate attempt to appear relevant in an era that has left them behind. But what was achieved? More hollow statements and disagreements.
Meanwhile, across the world, America’s Marco Rubio and Russia’s Sergei Lavrov were landing in Riyadh to discuss Ukraine’s future—without any European input. The so-called Paris FOMO summit only reinforced a stark truth: since the end of the Second World War, when Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill divided Europe, the continent has never been weaker.
Yes, Vladimir Putin is an imperialist aggressor, and Donald Trump a self-absorbed narcissist. And yes, rewarding a leader responsible for mass death is unconscionable. But moral outrage alone cannot change the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, a visible shift has occurred: the era of diplomacy governed by global institutions is fading, replaced by a world where hard power and realpolitik dominate.
Despite years of warnings, Britain and Europe’s influence has eroded due to decades of underinvestment in their militaries. While the West was dismantling its defence capabilities, Russia and China were strengthening theirs. The consequences are now painfully clear.
Sir Starmer’s defence spending pledge
There is some good news—Sir Keir Starmer recognises this dire situation and, sources say, intends to act. Britain currently spends 2.3% of its GDP on defence, amounting to £56 billion annually. Before the general election, Starmer pledged to increase that to 2.5%, but only when resources allowed. Now, for the first time, he is reportedly setting a timeline: by 2030.
He won’t stop there. Starmer is expected to commit to an even larger increase, raising defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2035. This announcement was originally planned for the publication of the Strategic Defence Review in April, but it may now be accelerated in response to Trump’s latest remarks.
A close ally of Starmer explains: “He gets it, because he’s an Old Labour patriot.” He has wanted to make this announcement for months. However, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been hesitant. She argues that the Ministry of Defence is a notorious black hole of public funds.
No. 10 aides, led by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, have repeatedly urged Starmer to override Reeves’ concerns. So far, he has refused, insisting instead: “We must persuade Rachel.” His aides, reportedly exasperated, have struggled with his patience.
Now, however, Reeves is close to approving the plan, on the condition that the military relinquishes some of its financial autonomy to the Treasury. What remains unresolved is how the government will finance this expansion. Increasing defence spending to 2.5% by 2030 will require an additional £6 billion per year, while reaching 3% by 2035 will demand £20 billion annually. These sums necessitate tough decisions—either cutting funding from other government departments or raising taxes. The Spring Spending Review will need to determine the answer.
Trump’s role in the equation
Beyond strengthening Britain’s own defences, the proposed spending increase serves another strategic purpose: persuading Trump to continue supporting NATO and Ukraine.
Although Starmer’s proposed 3% target is well below Trump’s demand that all NATO members spend 5% of GDP on defence, it represents a clear upward trajectory. Trump’s national security team, briefed on Starmer’s plans last month, reportedly welcomed the commitment. The former president values quick political wins he can boast about, and this pledge gives him exactly that. Trump is expected to highlight this at the NATO summit in the Netherlands on 24th June.
Is 3% enough?
Despite the significance of Starmer’s proposed increase, many argue that it is still insufficient. Britain’s military is already underfunded, requiring substantial investment simply to maintain its current capabilities.
Nuclear bases like Faslane need major modernisation. Britain lacks a ballistic missile defence system capable of countering hypersonic threats. Ammunition stockpiles are alarmingly low. Military recruitment is in crisis—each month, 300 more personnel leave the forces than can be replaced, despite already operating at historically low levels.
Currently, British defence chiefs are pushing for a more immediate increase to 2.65% of GDP. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte recently stated that all alliance members would soon need to raise spending to “considerably more than 3%” to keep pace with global threats.
During the Cold War, Britain spent significantly more on defence—7.1% of GDP in 1960 and 5.1% in 1986. The last time defence spending dipped below 3% was in 1995, under the assumption that Russia was no longer a threat. That assumption, clearly, was mistaken.
Even if Trump is convinced to maintain NATO’s financial support, recent geopolitical shifts have reinforced a harsh reality: Europe can no longer rely on the United States for its security. That dynamic is unlikely to change, even beyond Trump’s presidency.
More Read
A defining challenge for Sir Starmer
Rearming the UK and leading Europe towards military self-sufficiency will be the defining challenge of Starmer’s premiership. Recognising the problem is a good start, but much more will be needed to restore Britain’s place at the global table.
Dominic cummings and partygate: A myth unravelled
In an unexpected twist, Dominic Cummings recently claimed credit for exposing the Partygate scandal. In an interview with The Sunday Times, Boris Johnson’s former chief of staff boasted: “I orchestrated it with a bunch of other people in Westminster.”
However, sources familiar with the official leak inquiry dispute this account. The investigation—conducted quietly and never published—found that the scandal was actually leaked by a No. 10 employee who had attended the lockdown parties themselves.
The individual was identified after a paper trail led back to them. They had allegedly sold details of the gatherings to the Daily Mirror for a substantial five-figure sum. Faced with overwhelming evidence, the employee was given an ultimatum: resign or face potential legal consequences. They chose the former.
As one insider put it: “Cummings is one of the greatest self-mythologisers of our time.”
While Cummings may have revelled in the drama, his role in bringing down Boris Johnson was, at best, exaggerated.
