Britain, Ukraine, and the cost of war

The British Labour government under prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has struggled since its election to win over public opinion. Starmer has said he feels he has not dedicated enough time to domestic issues because he has been distracted by international affairs and being on the world stage. Things do not look set to get any easier on that front any time soon.

Keir Starmer announced¹ he is “ready and willing to put troops in Ukraine” to maintain peace in the region. Yet such commitments come with a significant financial cost to Britain’s already thin defence budget. While it may be a bitter pill to swallow, the prime minister should seek to temporarily shift foreign aid funding towards defence to ensure the end of war in eastern Europe.

War is expensive. Britain has already pledged an annual £3 billion² worth of aid towards Ukraine up until 2030. Combine this with Britain’s defence budget sitting at just over £53 billion, it becomes evident that conflict is costly. But with J.D. Vance demanding³ that Europe “step up” in its defensive support for Ukraine, these costs of war will only continue to spiral upwards. More firearms, more soldiers and more vehicles all require more money.

Starmer’s willingness to send troops to Ukraine will contribute to these already high costs. Speaking to the BBC⁴, Lord Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, argued that at least 40,000 British troops would be needed in Ukraine if peace were to be upheld. Such troops would not only be costly in terms of wages but also in terms of the equipment they require – whether this be firearms, body armour or medical supplies. With the cost of the average British soldier being greater than £47,000, the deployment of 40,000 additional troops could cost the government upwards of £1.8 billion.

It is widely agreed upon that the current defence budget could not cover the deployment of these 40,000 soldiers. Consequently, many have voiced their concerns over defence spending, imploring the prime minister to immediately raise defence spending to 2.5% in order to combat Russian aggression. A former official in the Foreign Office, Sir Simon Fraser, has publicly stated⁵ that Britain cannot afford to be weak as Putin’s war machine rolls on and that “means more spending and better spending.”

This has led many to question where this funding comes from. Tax rises are, of course, an option; however, with the economy already in a dire situation, further tax hikes will only strangle anything that resembles economic growth⁶. An alternative is to cut departmental spending elsewhere to provide the Ministry of Defence a higher financial ceiling. However, with the public having already voiced their outrage in response to Reeves’ cuts in October, this too is not an option.

To fund the UK’s overseas mission without sinking the economy at home, policymakers will have to temporarily redirect funding from less critical projects. In particular, a review of overseas development aid (ODA) should be held to transfer funding away from a small number of projects in order to revitalise the defence budget during times of such crisis.

That is not to say that the Treasury should implement deep, sweeping cuts on ODA. ODA is of vital importance to many countries across the world. For example, some projects help to provide clean and accessible water to disadvantaged groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nobody would want to prevent those who need such support from receiving it. Thus, projects akin to this should be insulated from Treasury reviews and potential cuts.

However, there are a number of projects that could be scaled back, albeit temporarily, if it allowed for a boost to defence funding. Exclusive reporting by The Sun⁷ found that the Foreign Office was providing £500,000 worth of taxpayers' money to fund electric vans in Albanian prisons. Coupled with this was a £133,000 study to better understand shrimp health in Bangladesh and £44,000 put towards studying Thailand’s alcohol policies. When Britain’s allies are calling for a rise in defence spending, it is hard to justify policies such as these.

These figures are symptomatic of a larger problem of government waste. Whilst the figures may seem small in comparison to the total defence budget, these are just a handful of programmes in one department. As research from The Taxpayers’ Alliance⁸ has shown, government waste is becoming the norm. If we cut down on this reckless spending, our defence can be bolstered, and Ukraine can be protected.

The foreign aid budget should not be arbitrarily slashed. However, a review is necessary to temporarily shift finances towards defence. Such a shift may last for a few months, or perhaps a few years – but such shifts are vital if Vladimir Putin is to be stopped. The UK’s ability to project itself overseas is essential. But the UK will be unable to project itself overseas if it does not have the necessary military capabilities.

It is an unpopular decision for the prime minister to take. But when national security is at stake, one cannot be swayed by public opinion.

This article was written by Oliver Dean. Oliver is a British writer and student at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he works with the Hayek Society.