Is Britain's Military Still Fit For Purpose? (Your Radical Questions with Brendan Simms)

**Amol Rajan** (0:08)
Hello, and welcome to Your Radical Questions, where we put your questions to one of our guests. This is your chance to engage directly with the radical people we have on this podcast, and ask them about ideas on the forces shaping the world. I'm joined again by Brendan Simms, Professor of the History of European International Relations at the University of Cambridge, and author of the new book Return of the Great Powers.
We covered a lot of ground in our previous conversation, where we discussed Brendan's argument that the UK remains a great power, touching on military strength, our economy, soft power, and international security services. But now Brendan is here to answer the radical questions that you've sent in. Brendan, thank you again for being here.

**Brendan Simms** (0:56)
Thank you for having me.

**Amol Rajan** (0:57)
Our first question is from Tom Garrard Bush. He sent us this voice note.

**Tom Garrard Bush** (1:04)
I've read some of Brendan's work, which I have found compelling in as much as I do think it's important that we're prepared to discuss Britain's strengths and assets, if we're to avoid a long-term spiral of managed decline. However, many of the pillars of British greatness, if we can use that word, that he cited are essentially relics of the past, systems and infrastructure that have carried over from past eras of prosperity and investment. My feeling is that we're lacking a coherent plan for the future, and that Britain has become so politically, socially, religiously, ideologically, and even generationally splintered, that we can't seem to forge ahead in an agreed direction. The polar diversity of some of the radical solutions outlined on this podcast could be said to attest to this.
So, is the mere word Britain itself enough for us to rally round, enough to provide the political will to succeed in the future that Brendan has alluded to, or do we need some clearer unifying principles to get behind?

**Amol Rajan** (2:06)
Relics of the past. What do you make of Tom's contribution there?

**Brendan Simms** (2:11)
Well, I would actually see the past as a strength. The reputation and the resilience to a considerable extent are historically derived. The standing in the world comes out of the history. Now, Tom is correct in saying that if you simply rest on those laurels or you depend on what becomes obsolete, then of course one's position becomes challenged. And I think, you know, you see historically that there were times when that happened, most obviously in the late 60s, early 70s, where many of the same criticisms that are being made today were circulating.
And yet the country found, admittedly, in a disputed way, but did find a new path under Margaret Thatcher, an economic transformation which then powered a revival of British power in the world. So to my mind, it's not difficult to imagine that happening in the future. But for it to happen, here I agree with Tom, there would have to be some fundamental change in terms of the economy, in terms of the generational distribution, some way of rallying the country more plausibly than is the case today.

**Amol Rajan** (3:26)
I also think Tom was alluding to much of our past in which we have not behaved perfectly. How can you convince people that this is different or more democratic, not, for example, simply imperial nostalgia?

**Brendan Simms** (3:46)
Because I don't think the UK's role today is simply deriving from the lost empire. I think that England was before the empire, England was a hugely important factor in European politics.
After the end of empire in its extended form in the 50s and 60s, the UK remained a very important factor. It is still, as I said earlier, the fifth or sixth largest economy and we might dispute the defense spending, but certainly one of the biggest defense spenders in the world still. The power of the UK today is real. It's not something that is just imagined or confected coming out of the history, but I see the history as a forcing it, rather than the history simply as a substitution of it.

**Amol Rajan** (4:37)
At the end, Tom asked whether almost is being British enough. Is that enough to unite and unify behind, or do there need to be some principles that are clearer?

**Brendan Simms** (4:50)
Well, I think being British is probably a good start. If you have a general view of that the country should be a country, that's not completely uncontested, as you know, certainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and even now in Wales. But I think maintaining the Union is an important part of maintaining the UK's position in the world. But of course, Britishness itself is not enough, no.