Skip to content

Austerity and Missiles

As Putin wages a war without end, Britain prepares for conflict in the only way it knows how, by cutting everything except the military.

The overnight assault was one of the heaviest in months. Ukrainian air defence intercepted 72 drones, but more than 70 struck their targets, energy facilities, homes, the familiar pattern of Putin’s war. Striking civilian infrastructure. Alongside them came Iskander-M ballistic missiles and S-300s, repurposed from their original air defence role into crude bombardment weapons. It followed another round of speculation about ceasefires, about a deal that might satisfy all parties. But Putin has no interest in compromise. Every supposed pause is merely preparation for the next offensive. His war economy is set to sustain this conflict indefinitely.

In Britain, where the war is fought at the level of budget lines, Rachel Reeves is finalising her Spring Statement. Defence spending is going up to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an eventual target of 3% but the means of funding it are familiar. The international aid budget will shrink again. Tax thresholds will stay frozen, dragging more people into higher bands. Cuts to public services are expected, though the details remain vague. A new “patriot tax” has been floated, though no one has yet dared to commit to it. Austerity, rebranded.

This is not rearmament as it was once understood. The last time Britain set itself to military expansion, it was with a state that could plan, build, and sustain both an army and a welfare state. The Cold War balance—guns, butter, nuclear submarines and council houses—has been broken. There will be weapons, but no real industrial policy, no strategic economy, no investment in the state’s capacity beyond its ability to wage war.

Putin is watching. He sees a Britain that still expects the market to provide, that assumes weapons can be bought when needed, that economic resilience is an expensive distraction. He knows how this ends. If Western governments continue in this direction, if they insist on funding war through domestic decline, he can wait. Eventually, the money will run out.


Book Review (83) Books (87) Britain (40) Capitalism (9) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) Crime and Punishment (9) diary (11) Donald J Trump (47) Elon Musk (9) Europe (11) Film (12) France (14) Gaza (9) Imperialism (18) Iran (10) Israel (15) Keir Starmer (11) Labour Government (31) Labour Party (9) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (13) Nigel Farage (13) Palestine (10) Protest (14) Reform UK (22) Russia (13) United States of America (88) War (22) Working Class (9)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share the Post:

Latest Posts

Imperialism

No One Is Above the Law—Not Even the SAS

The state demands loyalty from its killers, and contempt for those who ask why. To question the SAS is treated as heresy. To investigate them, as betrayal. But no one is above the law. Not even the men with night-vision goggles and state-sanctioned impunity. If the victims of British state violence are to be denied justice so that the myth of military virtue can remain intact, then we are not a democracy. We continue to be an empire that refuses to admit it.

Read More »
A weathered and torn political poster clings to a rough concrete wall. The poster reads “SOCIALISM OR BARBARISM, 2029?” with the words “SOCIALISM” and “2029?” in bold black and “BARBARISM” in bold red. The edges of the poster are frayed and peeling, suggesting age and neglect.
Green Party

The Left Breaks Cover: Sultana, Corbyn, and the Case for a New Party — With McDonnell at the Helm?

The Labour Party under Starmer has become a machine for silencing dissent. Abbott, Shaheen, Driscoll, and others have been smeared, blocked, or expelled. The party has moved right on immigration, welfare, protest, and Palestine — and done so proudly. Sultana’s resignation wasn’t a betrayal of Labour values. It was a defence of them. And if a new left party is to be more than symbolic, it needs more than moral clarity. It needs leadership. Corbyn remains the figurehead, but John McDonnell (articulate, disciplined, and trusted) is the one who could anchor this project. He may not want the crown. But that is exactly what makes him the right person to hold it.

Read More »