The war drive offers political cover to deepen austerity attacks that would otherwise face serious resistance.
Across the wealthy democracies of the West, a familiar story is being assembled: external enemies loom, welfare states have grown unsustainable, and sacrifice is required. The Morning Star argues that this narrative is not a security doctrine but an economic one — a coordinated effort to deepen austerity under the cover of manufactured threat, transferring costs onto working people while profits rise elsewhere. The human toll of this logic is not abstract; it has already been counted in excess deaths, rising poverty, and a social contract quietly dismantled while attention was directed toward distant horizons.
- NATO governments are using amplified fears of Russian and Chinese aggression to justify redirecting public funds toward defense — despite Russia being militarily overstretched in Ukraine and China having no credible designs on Western Europe.
- Welfare spending in Britain has already fallen 1.2% of GDP since its 2012-13 peak, even as populations age and poverty deepens — yet the political campaign to cut it further is accelerating.
- A UCL study attributed over one million excess deaths in Britain to austerity through 2019 alone, a toll that has continued to rise as the same policies intensify under new justifications.
- The war drive offers political cover that ordinary austerity cannot — suppressing dissent, silencing strikes, and framing cuts to pensions and disability benefits as patriotic necessity rather than class policy.
- Defense procurement, much of it sourced from the United States, generates far fewer jobs than alternative public investment, exposing the security rationale as a vehicle for profit rather than productive economic strategy.
There is a story being told across the wealthy democracies of the West: we are under siege, our militaries are starved, and our welfare states have grown too costly to sustain. The Morning Star argues this story is false at nearly every point — and that it serves a purpose with little to do with actual security.
The threat assessment does not hold up. Russia, simultaneously described as an existential danger and visibly bogged down in a grinding war in Ukraine, commands military forces roughly one-third the size of NATO's non-American European contingent. China, meanwhile, is not seriously argued by even the most hawkish voices to harbor designs on Western Europe. The threat, the paper contends, is manufactured to justify what follows.
What follows is the claim that welfare spending is out of control. The evidence says otherwise. In Britain, total welfare spending peaked in 2012-13 and has since fallen by 1.2 percent of GDP, even as the population has aged. Poverty is growing — including among people in work. State pensions rank among the lowest in Western Europe. By any measure rooted in actual need, welfare is not too high. It is too low.
The deeper logic traces back to 2010 and the austerity consensus that took hold across Europe. Cutting the social wage forces workers into lower-paid employment and longer working lives — and lower wages mean higher profits. The war drive now extends this project, providing political cover to deepen cuts that would otherwise face serious resistance. An existential threat justifies what peacetime cannot.
A UCL study documented over one million excess deaths in Britain through 2019 as a direct consequence of austerity. That toll has mounted since. The argument that military spending compensates through job creation is thin — much of what the Ministry of Defence procures comes from overseas, and far more efficient paths to supporting employment exist. The people who will pay for Britain's role in this war drive are the same people who have already paid the price of austerity, and the paper argues they have every reason to reject it.
There is a story being told across the wealthy democracies of the West, and it goes like this: we are under siege. Russia circles our borders. China waits in the wings. Our militaries are starved for resources. Our welfare states, by contrast, have grown fat and lazy, consuming money we can no longer afford to spend. The solution is clear: cut the social safety net, redirect those funds to defense, and prepare for the wars to come.
This narrative is false at nearly every point, and it serves a purpose that has little to do with actual security.
Start with the threat assessment. Russia, we are told, is simultaneously bogged down in a grinding war in Ukraine—sustaining catastrophic losses just to hold four provinces it has already claimed—and somehow poised to sweep across Europe with military forces roughly one-third the size of NATO's non-American European contingent. The logical impossibility is breathtaking. As for China, even the most hawkish voices in Western capitals do not seriously argue that Beijing harbors designs on invading Western Europe or Britain. The threat, in other words, is manufactured to justify what comes next.
What comes next is the claim that welfare spending is out of control and must be cut. The evidence tells a different story. In Britain, total welfare spending—including state pensions—peaked in 2012-13, during the depths of the financial crisis and the austerity that followed. Since then, it has fallen by 1.2 percent of GDP, even as the population has aged and grown. Projections show it rising by just 0.1 percent of GDP through 2029-30. Meanwhile, poverty is growing, including poverty among people who work. Disability benefits have been slashed. Britain's state pensions rank among the lowest in Western Europe, and the retirement age keeps climbing. By any objective measure rooted in actual need, welfare spending is not too high. It is too low.
Yet the campaign to cut it intensifies. Why? The answer begins with Donald Trump. On the campaign trail and since taking office, Trump has pressured NATO members to spend more on defense, claiming they have shirked their obligations. This demand serves a larger American interest: as the United States has lost economic ground to China, it seeks to reassert dominance through military means. The surge in NATO military spending is the mechanism. But there is a second, older motivation at work—one that predates the current war fever by years.
Since 2010, austerity has been the governing economic philosophy across much of Europe and Britain. The stated goal was to restore fiscal health. The actual mechanism was far more subtle. By cutting welfare, reducing pensions, and shrinking the social wage, governments force workers to accept lower-paid employment or work longer into their lives. Lower wages mean higher profits. This has been the central aim all along. Yet even this strategy has failed on its own terms. Profitability in Britain and Western Europe continues to decline. The exception, tellingly, is the United States, where corporate profits are rising robustly.
The war drive offers a way out of this impasse. It provides political cover to deepen austerity attacks that would otherwise face serious resistance. An existential threat justifies cuts that seem impossible in peacetime. A UCL study documented over one million excess deaths in Britain through 2019 as a result of austerity policies. That toll has only mounted since. The war narrative promises to silence dissent—no more backbench rebellions, no more successful strikes. The working class and the poor will simply absorb the cost.
The argument that military spending creates jobs is thin. Even compared to Britain's struggling manufacturing sector, defense procurement generates only a fraction of the jobs or output. Much of what the Ministry of Defence buys comes from overseas, especially from the United States. There are far more efficient ways to support manufacturing employment. But efficiency is not the point. The point is to lower wages, raise profits, and do it all under the banner of national security. The people who will pay for Britain's role in this war drive are the same people who have already paid the price of austerity. They have every reason to reject it.
Notable Quotes
The working class and the poor simply cannot afford Britain's role in Trump's war drive. They will be the ones who are forced to pay for it and have every interest in rejecting that imposition.— The Morning Star editorial
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the article keep returning to the idea that welfare spending is actually falling? Doesn't that seem like a strange thing to emphasize if the whole point is that governments are lying about the threat?
Because the lie is the mechanism. If welfare spending were genuinely out of control, there would be a real trade-off to discuss. But it's not. Spending has fallen even as need has grown. So the campaign to cut it further isn't about fiscal reality—it's about using the threat narrative to justify something that would otherwise be politically difficult.
You're saying the war drive is cover for austerity, not the other way around?
Partly. Austerity has been the project since 2010. But it's stalled. Profits aren't rising the way they should. The war narrative gives policymakers permission to push harder on the same agenda—cut welfare, lower wages, boost corporate returns—without the usual political friction.
But doesn't military spending actually require money? If you're cutting welfare and raising defense budgets, where does the money come from?
That's the sleight of hand. The money comes from the same place it always does—from workers and the poor, through lower wages and reduced services. The military budget is the justification, but the real redistribution is happening in the labor market and the welfare system.
So the threat from Russia and China—you're saying it's entirely fabricated?
Not entirely. Russia is a real actor with real interests. But the scale of the threat, the imminence of it, the idea that it justifies dismantling social protection—that's where the dishonesty lives. The threat is real enough to be useful politically. That's all it needs to be.
What would happen if workers actually understood this connection between the war drive and austerity?
That's the fear. If the working class saw that they're being asked to pay twice—once through welfare cuts and once through military spending—the political consensus would fracture. That's why the narrative has to be so relentless and so total.