National security is about more than surviving wars - development and diplomacy are what create lasting peace

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has transformed Europe's security landscape, reminding governments that military capability can never be taken for granted. From increased Russian naval activity around Britain's waters to Moscow's nuclear forces concentrated in the High North, the Alliance faces real and enduring threats that demand a credible response.

NATO's decision to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP reflects the scale of the security challenges facing the Alliance. Rebuilding Britain's armed forces after decades of underinvestment is essential if we are to deter aggression, reassure allies and protect our national interests.

But military strength, while indispensable, is not the whole of national security. If this summit produces only larger defence budgets without a broader conversation about how security is achieved, it will have addressed only part of the challenge.

I know this because I have seen it from both sides. As a Royal Marine, I understood the importance of military strength in protecting national interests and saw firsthand the consequences of underinvestment in defence. Later, working as an aid worker, I encountered a different dimension of security. I saw how fragile states become breeding grounds for instability when governance collapses, economies fail, and communities lose hope. Military force may help contain a crisis, but lasting security depends on building the conditions that make conflict less likely.

If we define security solely through military capability, we risk overlooking the very tools that prevent conflict. Defence is just one pillar of national security. Diplomacy, development and humanitarian engagement are others. They are not competing priorities, but complementary investments in stability.

Too often, development assistance is treated as separate from security strategy. That misunderstands its purpose. Russia is demonstrating that modern conflict extends far beyond the battlefield. Alongside conventional military power, it uses cyberattacks, disinformation, political interference and economic coercion. If adversaries deploy every instrument of national power, our response cannot rely on military strength alone.

This is why reductions in the development budget should concern anyone serious about national security. Conflict prevention, governance and resilience programmes directly support Britain's long-term security by reducing instability before it requires military intervention. Yet these investments are often forced to compete with humanitarian priorities within constrained budgets.

Development and humanitarian assistance are integral to national security. Humanitarian assistance mitigates the worst impacts of conflict, while development helps prevent instability from escalating.

When states cannot provide food, jobs, education or basic services, space opens for instability to grow. Extremist groups recruit. Organised crime expands. Hostile actors exploit weak institutions and corruption to extend their influence. Cutting these investments while increasing defence spending risks treating the symptoms of insecurity while neglecting its causes.

Ukraine itself demonstrates this reality. Its defence depends on weapons, ammunition and air defence systems. But its future will equally depend on functioning institutions, economic recovery, reconstruction and sustained international support. Military assistance may help Ukraine survive the war, but development and diplomacy will help secure the peace that follows.

The lesson from Ukraine is not simply that hard power matters. It is that lasting security depends on more than military strength. Strong armed forces deter aggression, diplomacy prevents escalation, development tackles instability before it becomes conflict, and humanitarian assistance helps societies recover rather than collapse. One without the other leaves our security incomplete.

NATO exists to deter war. But Britain's responsibility is to help secure the peace that deterrence makes possible. That requires credible armed forces, but also diplomacy that prevents crises, development that builds resilience, and humanitarian engagement that stabilises fragile societies.

____________________

Alex Ballinger is the MP for Halesowen.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk