UK Security Expert Calls for Immediate 5% Defence Spending, Urges Preparation for War Without US Support
A leading security academic at the University of Leicester has called for the United Kingdom to immediately increase its core defence spending to five per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Dr. Simon Bennett, Director of the Civil Safety and Security Unit in the university’s School of Business, argues that the country must be prepared for a wider European conflict and should develop contingency plans to operate without the direct military assistance of the United States.
Dr. Bennett, who is also the author of an upcoming 2025 book on security lessons gleaned from the ongoing war in Ukraine, outlined his proposals in comments released through the university’s press office. His recommendations significantly exceed the UK government’s current defence spending commitments and reflect a stark assessment of geopolitical risks.
The Case for Immediate Defence Enhancement and Strategic Autonomy
According to Dr. Bennett, the evolving global security landscape, particularly in Europe, necessitates a radical shift in the UK’s defence posture. He stated, “Given these facts, we must prepare ourselves to fight alone.” He expressed concern that current political leadership, referencing a hypothetical future Prime Minister Andy Burnham and opposition leader Keir Starmer, may be in “denial about Trump,” whom he described as “a lost cause.” Bennett’s perspective suggests a belief that a future US administration under Donald Trump could significantly reduce its commitment to European security, leaving allies like the UK to shoulder a greater burden.
Against this backdrop, Dr. Bennett emphasized two immediate priorities for the UK: “Better to focus finite energies and budgets first, on supporting Ukraine, and secondly, on preparing this country for a wider European war.” He asserted that defence spending must “be increased to 5% of Gross Domestic Product immediately.” This figure refers specifically to core defence expenditure, a crucial distinction from broader defence-related spending targets.
Furthermore, Bennett echoed calls made by Lord Hutton of Furness, a former Secretary of State for Defence (2008-2009), suggesting that “the British public must be told the truth about Russia’s hybrid warfare campaign.” This reflects a belief that public awareness and understanding are critical for national resilience in the face of modern security threats.
Spectrum of Threats and Past Incidents
Dr. Bennett highlighted a broad array of threats confronting the United Kingdom. “The United Kingdom faces a spectrum of threats,” he noted, citing two “Kremlin-initiated chemical warfare attacks” on British soil. These refer to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in London in 2006, an incident a public inquiry found was likely approved by the Russian president, and the Novichok attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in 2018. The latter incident, which Britain attributed to the Russian GRU military intelligence service, tragically resulted in the death of British citizen Dawn Sturgess.
Beyond chemical threats, Bennett also pointed to the UK’s vulnerability to biological weapons, referencing recent assessments by the Washington-based Council on Strategic Risks, an institute focused on biological, climate, and nuclear security. He urged a hypothetical future Prime Minister Burnham to “focus on what really matters – giving Ukraine the weapons it needs and securing a vulnerable United Kingdom. Do not prostrate yourself before Trump, as your predecessor did. As Volodymyr Zelensky and Mark Carney have shown, the only way to deal with Trump is to stand up to him.”
Divergence from Government Policy
Dr. Bennett’s call for an immediate five per cent of GDP on core defence spending represents a significant departure from the UK government’s stated policy. Ministers have committed to achieving NATO’s target of 2.5 per cent of GDP on core defence as a baseline, with an ambition to reach 3.5 per cent by 2035. An additional 1.5 per cent is earmarked for defence-related resilience and infrastructure, bringing the alliance’s headline five per cent figure into view by 2035. Bennett’s demand is for core defence spending alone to reach five per cent now, a distinction ministers have frequently clarified.
Government Acknowledgement of Hybrid Warfare and Preparedness
While the spending targets differ, some of Dr. Bennett’s concerns regarding Russian hybrid warfare align with recent government statements. Wes Streeting, a prominent opposition figure, informed the Defence Committee this month that such hybrid activity constitutes “state-backed terrorism.” Furthermore, Louise Sandher-Jones, a government minister, confirmed in a recent written answer that “we know Russia is conducting a campaign of hybrid attacks and sabotage across Europe.”
The government is also taking steps to enhance national preparedness. Ministers have confirmed that public messaging on defence and security will intensify ahead of Exercise ALBISTON SHADOW and NATO’s crisis management exercise, both scheduled for spring 2027. Additionally, the Cabinet Office launched its “Be Ready” campaign this month, advising households on how to prepare to be self-sufficient for a minimum of three days in the event of various emergencies.
Bennett’s Assessment of US Politics
At the core of Dr. Bennett’s argument lies his interpretation of American political developments. He described the former US president as a “Russophile” and, explicitly stating this as his personal opinion, a “traitor to the West’s liberal-democratic values.” Bennett claimed to have predicted in March 2025 that Trump would align the United States with Russia through new accords and treaties, an assertion for which he reportedly received criticism at the time.
Why This Matters
Dr. Simon Bennett’s intervention highlights a critical and intensifying debate within the United Kingdom and across Europe regarding national security, defence preparedness, and the future of international alliances. His call for an immediate and substantial increase in defence spending to five per cent of GDP directly challenges current government policy and reflects a profound concern over the geopolitical landscape.
Geopolitical Realities:The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, coupled with Russia’s assertive posture and documented hybrid warfare tactics, underscores the urgency of reassessing defence capabilities. Bennett’s argument for preparing for a “wider European war” without US assistance speaks to a growing apprehension about the reliability of long-standing alliances, particularly in light of potential shifts in American foreign policy under a future presidential administration. This directly impacts the strategic calculations of NATO member states and the broader European security architecture.
Economic Implications:An immediate increase in core defence spending to five per cent of GDP would entail a significant reallocation of national resources. Such a move would necessitate difficult budgetary decisions, potentially impacting other sectors like healthcare, education, or infrastructure, and would require substantial public consensus. The economic cost of heightened defence readiness is a central consideration for any government.
Strategic Autonomy:The academic’s emphasis on the UK preparing to “fight alone” without the United States taps into a wider European discussion about strategic autonomy. Should the US reduce its commitment to NATO, European nations would face increased pressure to enhance their collective and individual defence capabilities, potentially leading to greater defence integration or a re-evaluation of national security doctrines.
Public Awareness and Resilience:The call to inform the public about Russia’s hybrid warfare and the government’s “Be Ready” campaign signal a recognition that modern threats extend beyond conventional military engagements. They encompass cyber-attacks, disinformation, and economic coercion, requiring a whole-of-society approach to resilience. Educating the public about these complex threats is crucial for national cohesion and preparedness.
Role of Expert Opinion:Dr. Bennett’s outspoken views, though sometimes controversial, demonstrate the vital role of academic experts in challenging governmental orthodoxy and stimulating public debate on critical national security matters. His analysis, informed by studies of conflicts like the war in Ukraine, offers an alternative perspective that policymakers must consider as they navigate an increasingly volatile international environment.