It is tempting, amid global turbulence and intense political pressure, to treat an increase in defence spending as a panacea for the threats that confront us. The British government’s latest announcement – the biggest sustained rise in British military expenditure since the Cold War – sees the UK’s defence budget rise to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with an ‘ambition’ to reach 3% in the next parliament.
Funded by reducing overseas aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, Sir Keir Starmer’s announcement has been hailed by its predictable supporters as an urgently needed response to mounting geopolitical uncertainty.
Detractors are few on the ground. But then again, those arguing for caution are always labelled naive at best and Chamberlain-fools at worst.
However, as an organisation committed to preventing the harm caused by armed violence around the world, Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) believes this approach risks placing sheer financial outlay ahead of strategic foresight, diplomacy, and conflict prevention.
The Prime Minister’s decision, accelerated (by his own admission) in the context of US President Donald Trump’s demands for higher European defence spending, highlights our concern. While NATO obligations and the ongoing war in Ukraine demand serious and credible security policies, we question whether vast increases in military spending – particularly if financed by slashed development budgets – are the most effective, or ethical, route to long-term peace and stability
A “Generational Response” or a Blunt Reaction?
The Prime Minister’s promise of a “generational response” to intensifying global threats is understandable, given the brutal war in Ukraine and the new era of geopolitical rivalry it ushers in. Yet this is not the first time British governments have responded to external pressure by boosting the defence budget. It is notable that the government is accelerating its timeline for higher spending just as the US administration signals a desire to see Europe take more responsibility for its own defence.
Such moves often gather cross-party support because they appear decisive. Indeed, even some on the left seem increasingly inclined to join in a sort of rhetorical arms race – matching or exceeding the right’s demands in order to ‘prove’ their toughness. But at AOAV, we urge progressives to exercise caution. Military investment should not become an end in itself, nor a simple test of political will. Rather, any rise in British defence spending must be tied to a coherent plan that centres conflict prevention and support for the world’s most vulnerable.
Cutting Aid to Fund Arms
A key concern in the government’s new policy is the decision to fund the additional billions by reducing the UK’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI). Not long ago, commitments to overseas aid were touted as cornerstones of “Global Britain”, helping build stability and prosperity in fragile states, and alleviating the suffering of people displaced by war (and in some cases people displaced by Britain’s wars).
AOAV sees this budget cut as potentially self-defeating. Decades of evidence show that conflict often flourishes where development, governance, and infrastructure collapse. Slashing £6bn or more from crucial development support to reallocate that money to expensive weapons systems might ease immediate political pressure, but it undermines longer-term security goals. Reducing the root causes of armed violence – through poverty reduction, education, healthcare, and civil society resilience – is a powerful form of prevention. By cutting support to these areas, the UK risks creating more fertile ground for future conflicts that even the biggest military budget cannot simply ‘contain’ indefinitely.
A Phyrric Victory?
We should also address the urgent question of what this extra money will actually buy. In recent years, the UK’s armed forces have faced hollowing out: shortfalls in munitions, ageing equipment, and recruitment challenges. Although the Prime Minister has announced that increasing the budget will revitalise stockpiles and invest in technology (from cyber to next-generation aircraft), there is a risk that simply throwing funds at major capital projects or intelligence capabilities misses the bigger picture.
New technology and big-ticket items cannot fully offset poor strategic planning or an underinvestment in the people and partnerships needed to respond effectively to modern conflicts. The war in Ukraine has emphasised the importance of adaptable logistics, well-trained personnel, and effective alliances. A stronger overarching strategy that knits together diplomacy, arms control, and conflict-resolution initiatives is needed if the UK is truly to meet what is described as a “generational challenge”.
Don’t Let the Right Frame the Debate
There is a particular danger that left-of-centre parties capitulate to the simplistic notion that matching ever-larger defence budgets is a prerequisite of political credibility. In doing so, they risk losing sight of their traditional strengths – promoting social justice, addressing global inequality, and championing peace-building efforts. Slogans about being “tough” on defence can easily overshadow more nuanced conversations about how best to prevent war in the first place.
Indeed, if the UK is willing to cut billions from aid to fund weapons, it tacitly endorses a narrative that ‘true’ security only comes through bigger arsenals. This is not only short-sighted in the long run; it also underestimates the British public’s understanding that development aid can be a bulwark against future conflict. If progressives keep chasing the right’s defence demands, our political landscape will be further skewed towards militarised solutions and away from the root causes of international tension.
AOAV does not deny the reality of serious global threats. Nor do we dispute that military capability plays a role in national defence. But a truly “generational” policy would not merely expand one pillar of security at the expense of the other. It would harness diplomatic initiatives, arms control treaties, robust overseas development, and humanitarian support as part of a broader effort to foster long-term peace.
Yes, we must ensure British forces are adequately equipped and prepared – especially in a world where adversaries such as Russia pose a grave threat. But that same world needs Britain’s moral and financial commitment to diplomacy, stabilisation, and support for vulnerable communities. Cutting crucial aid for crises in places like Sudan or Yemen – especially given the record numbers of people already displaced globally – will only fuel further instability and human suffering.
The Bigger Picture
At a time when the government touts the “biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War”, we urge policymakers not to lose sight of the bigger security picture. Every pound taken away from effective development assistance to pay for rising defence budgets shrinks our ability to tackle the underlying drivers of conflict, from state fragility to poverty and climate vulnerability.
We encourage all political parties, particularly those on the left, to resist the temptation to merely outflank right-wing hawkishness. Instead, they should champion a balanced approach that addresses the real needs of communities worldwide, both at home and abroad. More warships, jets, or cyber weapons will not on their own deliver the sustainable peace that ordinary people need. If the lesson of the last three years is that conflict can upend lives with lightning speed, then surely the lesson of the last three decades is that it is cheaper and far more humane to prevent war than to fight it.
The UK can, and must, do better by forging a genuinely comprehensive security strategy that balances necessary defence spending with development, diplomacy, and global cooperation. If we truly want to keep Britain – and the world – safer, then cutting aid to pay for more arms is no victory at all.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate