By John Q. Hosedrinker 
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a significant increase in UK defense spending, aiming to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% by 2034, to counter the perceived threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he labelled a tyrant. This increase, framed as the largest since the Cold War’s end, is intended to deter further Russian aggression in Europe and protect the UK from various forms of Russian interference. The plan involves strengthening alliances with the US and other European nations, while also focusing on procuring crucial military equipment like drones and tanks to bolster UK readiness. A peacekeeping plan for Ukraine, developed with France, seeks indirect US support.
Read the original article here
Keir Starmer’s recent call for a significant increase in UK defence spending, framed around the assertion that “tyrants only respond to strength,” highlights a growing concern about the West’s response to global aggression, particularly focusing on Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine. The argument centers on the perceived weakness displayed in the face of Russian expansionism, a weakness that, it’s argued, emboldened Putin and led to the current conflict.
This perceived weakness isn’t just about military might; it extends to diplomatic approaches. The suggestion is that a more forceful, less conciliatory stance from the outset – perhaps even military intervention at the time of the annexation of Crimea – might have deterred further Russian aggression. The lack of a robust response, the argument goes, signaled weakness and invited further encroachment.
The counterargument immediately arises: a preemptive military response could have escalated the situation far beyond what we’re currently experiencing, potentially leading to a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. This highlights the delicate balancing act faced by European leaders. While acknowledging the need for strength, the concern remains that a purely aggressive approach could trigger a catastrophic conflict, with devastating consequences.
However, the narrative questioning the efficacy of solely diplomatic responses persists. The suggestion is that Putin’s aggression is driven by an assessment of Western resolve, and a belief that the West will ultimately prioritize diplomacy over confrontation, even at the cost of allowing continued aggression. This creates a dangerous dynamic, where appeasement is seen as a sign of weakness and invites further escalation.
Central to this debate is the role of NATO. Some argue that NATO’s eastward expansion was a provocation that inadvertently invited Russia’s aggressive actions. They maintain that the expansion of NATO into territories previously within the Soviet sphere of influence created a sense of encirclement for Russia, fueling its sense of insecurity and leading to its retaliatory actions.
Yet, counter to this view is the argument that a defensive alliance like NATO serves as a deterrent to aggression and that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine directly contradicts this assertion, precisely because Ukraine was not a member of NATO. The lack of NATO protection in Ukraine is cited as a key factor that emboldened Putin to act with impunity. The absence of a strong military response to earlier incursions, like the annexation of Crimea, has seemingly reinforced this perception of Western weakness.
The discussion also touches upon the role of past US administrations. Some criticize previous administrations for a perceived lack of decisiveness and for inadvertently signaling weakness to authoritarian regimes. There’s a sense that a more assertive stance from the outset might have altered the course of events, leading to a more cautious approach from Russia.
In essence, the debate centers on a crucial question: is it possible to deter aggression through a combination of diplomatic efforts and strong military capabilities, or is military strength the only credible language that authoritarian leaders understand? The ongoing conflict in Ukraine underscores the complexities and potential dangers of both approaches. The fear of a large-scale war continues to loom large, forcing a careful consideration of the balance between strength and diplomacy in responding to international aggression. The question of whether a stronger military response earlier would have prevented the current conflict remains a central point of contention. However, the ongoing events strongly suggest that a stronger, more unified approach is vital to deterring future aggression.