Battle Lines Why cutting aid to buy bombs is making us less safe
5 snips
Nov 26, 2025 In this episode, Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, and Olivia O'Sullivan, Director at Chatham House, delve into the chilling consequences of cutting aid to bolster defense spending. They argue that such moves threaten national security and allow competitors like China to seize influence. Dannatt reflects on past engagements in Sudan and Bosnia, demonstrating how development can foster peace. O'Sullivan highlights the severe impacts on global health, including rising infectious diseases, as cuts disproportionately affect vulnerable regions and essential programs.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Soft Power Multiplies Military Influence
- Dannatt argues UK security depends on combining hard power with development spending to maintain influence.
- Cutting aid from 0.7% to 0.3% erodes influence and increases migration pressures, making the UK less safe.
Bosnia Example Of Aid Buying Influence
- Dannatt recalls Bosnia: small development projects would have aided reconciliation after Dayton in 1995.
- He says modest infrastructure spending would have bought local hearts and minds more effectively than just hard power.
Premature Exit Undermined Long-Term Gains
- Dannatt warns the premature 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan undermined two decades of societal progress.
- He highlights gains like female judges and education that were lost after the chaotic exit.