Welfare Over Warfare: The West’s Dangerous Complacency

 The  Western societies, bloated on welfare and complacency, find themselves scrambling to muster a fraction of the defense spending during the Cold War, revealing a dangerous underestimation of current global threats.

In the midst of the Ukrainian crisis, a stark reality confronts us: the Western world, bloated on welfare and complacency, finds itself ill-prepared to meet the demands of a modern war, let alone aid Ukraine in its desperate struggle for survival. The recent news about Ukraine’s dire shortage of artillery shells brings this issue into sharp focus. A senior Ukrainian officer's statement about the irrelevance of incoming F-16 fighter jets if Ukraine is overrun due to a lack of artillery support is a grim reminder of the precarious situation.

The crux of the matter lies not in financial constraints but in the startling lack of production capacity. Even the United States, with the world's largest military-industrial complex, struggles to produce a fraction of the artillery shells Ukraine requires. This deficiency is not unique to the U.S.; it is a widespread problem across the Western world. Nations have resorted to depleting their existing stockpiles to support Ukraine, but this is a stopgap measure at best. The question arises: Why have new factories not been established sooner?

The United States, recognizing the shortfall in its ability to produce sufficient artillery shells for Ukraine, has been proactive in its response. Since 2022, it has embarked on a significant project to construct new facilities, with the aim of substantially increasing production capabilities within the year. However, this swift American response starkly contrasts with the more sluggish efforts of other Western nations, illuminating a pervasive issue: the West's hesitance to fully commit to a long-term, extensive shell production industry to indefinitely support Ukraine's military efforts. This hesitation is compounded by the emerging issue of Ukraine's dwindling manpower, which further complicates the situation. Consequently, there is a shifting focus towards prioritizing and strengthening our own defense infrastructures, given the increasing uncertainties and escalating demands of modern warfare.

The strategic preferences of Western military powers, particularly as articulated by the Royal Air Force (RAF), reveal a distinct aversion to traditional, attritional warfare. Our current military doctrine emphasizes leveraging technological superiority and executing rapid, decisive strikes, a strategy that has evolved considerably over the years. This was clearly demonstrated in the 2003 campaign against Saddam Hussein's forces, where minimal artillery was employed, relying instead on superior technology and tactics. However, concerns arise about the long-term efficacy of this approach, especially in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The Russian military, engaged in this conflict, is not only gaining valuable combat experience but is also likely to emerge more robust and formidable, backed by Putin's dedicated war economy. This poses a significant challenge to the West, which may find its current military strategies less effective against a revitalized and more experienced Russian force.

This situation is further exacerbated by the stark contrast in military focus and spending between Russia and Western nations. Russia's military budget is skyrocketing, now consuming a substantial 6% of its GDP. This is in stark contrast to the more modest defense spending by Western European countries, such as Italy, which allocates a mere 1.7% of its GDP to defense. The implications of this disparity are profound. Even in a scenario where the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, the collective military strength of the remaining European nations would still fall short of Russia's burgeoning military power. This gap not only reflects a difference in financial commitment but also underscores a deeper issue of resolve, or the lack thereof, within the West. The reluctance to supply Ukraine with the necessary arms to regain control over territories like Crimea is not just a logistical failure; it reflects a deficiency in what Napoleon once termed "grit" – the determination and moral fortitude to confront and overcome formidable adversaries. This lack of resolve is a critical vulnerability that could have far-reaching consequences for the stability and security of the Western world.

The discussion in the UK about increasing defense spending to 2.5-3% of GDP, while a step in the right direction, falls short of the Cold War benchmark of 4-5%. This hesitancy is not limited to the UK; it pervades Western Europe. Europe's welfare-dependent societies struggle to redirect funds towards defense. The UK, for instance, plans to spend a staggering £1,189 billion in 2023-24, with only a fraction allocated to defense. The mere suggestion of modest budget cuts in other departments to bolster defense is met with resistance, illustrating UK's misplaced priorities.

But the danger looms large. Should autocrats conquer Europe, the UK would undoubtedly become a target. Even if UK were to double its defense budget, its entrenched welfare mentality and stagnant economies would hinder effective military investment. Instead of efficiently acquiring military equipment, UK need to entangle itself in economically driven projects that often fail to deliver, such as the misguided attempts to revive British shipyards or replicate U.S. technology.

The lesson from Ukraine’s artillery shortage is clear: preparation for war cannot begin when war is already upon the West. The West must shed its complacency and rethink its government’s role, recognizing that national defense is paramount. It’s time for the Western world to rearm, to recalibrate its priorities, and most importantly, to rediscover the grit and determination that once defined it. This is not just about supporting Ukraine; it’s about ensuring its own survival in a world where threats are ever-present and evolving.