Good point - I should clarify the distinction.

You’re absolutely right that NATO membership already handles military cooperation, and UK doesn’t need Erasmus to fight alongside allies. The warmongering propaganda angle isn’t the mechanism here.

The argument isn’t about war causation, it’s about post-war political justification for domestic policy.

The problem Starmer faces isn’t “how does UK participate in European defense” (NATO solves that automatically). It’s “how does UK reverse Brexit without a referendum” (which 52% voted for and gave Johnson an 80-seat majority on).

*Without pre-existing EU integration:*

- War happens, UK fights via NATO - Post-war: “Should we now join EU?” = new political fight, opposition says “Why? NATO worked fine”

*With pre-existing EU integration already operating:*

- War happens, UK fights via NATO while Erasmus/research/supply chains already running - Post-war: “Should we dismantle what’s working?” = continuation not new initiative, opposition struggles to argue for dismantling cooperation that “helped win”

The £4-5bn isn’t buying military capability - it’s buying political narrative infrastructure that makes post-war EU integration defensible as “honoring the partnership that won the war” rather than “new Brussels control.”

Historical precedent: UK fought alongside Europe 1939-45 but didn’t join EU until 1973 (28 years later) because post-war integration had to be argued from scratch. Current spending changes the starting position.

Whether this is cynical pre-planning or just opportunistic positioning for probable crisis is debatable. But the logic works even if European publics already accept confrontation necessity - because the constraint isn’t European opinion, it’s UK domestic politics on EU membership specifically.

Could be completely wrong about this! But that’s the strategic coherence I’m seeing in the otherwise-inexplicable willingness to pay 4-5x markup for programs while claiming fiscal responsibility.