Rearming to deter Russian aggression

You may not be interested in Russian belligerence, but Russian belligerence is interested in you, to paraphrase Leon Trotsky. Every day brings fresh evidence of the malevolent and increasingly reckless activities of the revanchist regime in Russia.

A blatant example is the foiled armed drone attack on a Ukrainian cargo plane at Leipzig airport in Germany. There are increasing incursions into NATO airspace and visible Russian naval surveillance of subsea cables on which we depend for financial transfers, the internet, and energy supplies. A former Russian minister suggested “semi-military” operations against the UK for supporting Ukraine. Proxies hired by Russia tried to raze a property owned by Keir Starmer.

It is hard to glean Russian intent. A rare visit by the CIA Director to meet his counterpart in Moscow sparked fresh fears that Russia is planning an attack on the Baltic States. Speculation has been increased by suspicious activities in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, an ice-free port and military base between Poland and Lithuania.

Estonian intelligence chief Kaupo Rosin says NATO is continuing to deter Putin, and that Article V, NATO’s collective defence commitment, remains credible: “I think, at this point, Putin understands that Article V is actually still valid. So we don’t see a near-term threat.” Estonia and other Baltic States worry that frenetic headlines are doing Putin’s propaganda for him. Their decades of watching Russia deserve our respect.

But there is a gathering consensus about the Russian threat. Professor Michael Clarke, a seasoned defence expert and commentator for Sky, argues that “we’re heading towards a militarized confrontation with Russia.”

Clarke says the West is richer and better armed but Russia is mobilised and war-ready. He says “I ask myself every week, am I taking this too seriously? Am I being too alarmist? And every week, I come to the same conclusion: no. Things are really getting objectively worse or more tense.”

NATO members have agreed to step up defence spending to 3.5% of GDP plus 1.5% on defence infrastructure by 2035. This is difficult for the UK government given deep-set domestic crises ranging from adult social care, public housing, and failing utility companies, as well as reindustrialising to boost growth, including through rearmament.

As its founder, Labour is in a good position to promote the security NATO provides. Most party members accept increased defence spending and support NATO. A Survation poll for LabourList in February 2026 found that 74 percent of members backed a boost to military spending and almost nine in ten members back NATO membership.

The aberrations of the Corbyn period have faded. Corbyn opposed the deployment of British forces to Estonia but was stopped by senior shadow defence ministers. Diane Abbott’s asinine assertion that “the imminent threat from Russia is a Nato fiction to justify their complete capitulation to Trump’s demands for more military spending” shows how out of touch she is.

Parts of the American left may have more traction in time. Putative presidential candidate AOC is linked to the Democratic Socialists of America whose Co-Chair Megan Romer recently said that America should not arm Ukraine but, instead, send huge teams of diplomats to negotiate. And diplomats from an administration they decry as imperialist.

This reminds us of Omid Djalili’s quip that asking the Iranian regime to change its behaviour is like being attacked by a bunch of zombies and asking them to consider a vegan diet. Putin is a bloodthirsty carnivore who knows what he’s doing. Abandoning Ukraine would be disastrous.

The delusions and dalliances of the hard left, the Greens, and Reform as well as wider wariness can be countered through the government’s forthcoming national conversation about defence and resilience.

The vital conversation should overcome the often jargonized discourse of defence policy, riddled with TLAs, three letter acronyms, and healthy criticism about delayed and budget-breaking military projects – white elephants that have created black holes in defence finances.

As Defence Secretary, John Healey rightly championed proposals to secure value for money and to encourage small and medium sized enterprises, not just the primes, to develop innovative weapons systems.

Labour Friends of NATO will complement the public conversation with educational and engage with Estonians and others, who well understand Russia’s militarist mentality.

Global politics and military innovation are changing at a dizzying space. Putin could be ousted suddenly but his successor could be worse. President Trump will be replaced but his successor will continue the recalibration of America’s strategic foreign relations maybe in a more collegiate manner.

Drones and AI are transforming the battlefield. New York Times columnist, Tom Friedman writes that the dynamic of “the new physics of power” is that the small can now act really big, really accurately and really inexpensively. And while the big can also act really small, really accurately, it is far more expensive for them to do that while bearing the burden of vast legacy arms systems.”

Diplomacy and development are vital to security but strong deterrence can reduce miscalculations that can start shooting wars. That means increased defence spending after several decades of under-investment. Labour’s strategic defence review is a progressive menu for why and how that should be done and overcoming understandable concerns. The review provides feasible options to protect our country and Labour’s reform programme at home and abroad. Victory for belligerence could cost much more than strong deterrence now.

Gary Kent and Paul Richards are co-directors of Labour Friends of NATO.

Please apply for a ticket to our reception at the Labour Party conference with Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, and others at https://ardenstrategies.com/event/labour-friends-of-nato-reception/