How many NATO countries actually step up.

If Russia attacked them who else do you dread a threat that needs to be defended against?

Do you think that the lesson ofUkraine where the Ukraine(helped to a limited extent by the West) has stopped the Russians at most 200 miles from their border suggests that Russia is militarily capable of pushing 000s of miles across Europe?

Russia got caught out by the Wests early resolve. They thought Ukraine would be another Georgia. Now they are gearing up their huge economy to war while calling it defence. 
This is what Hitler did in the run up to WW2 while we sat smugly and said he couldn't do it and we beat them last time. Few people realise how much of WW2 was almost nothing happening while we caught up and armed ourselves. 

It has enormous resources and a great deal of cash. If you think about it you are implying here that the UK could beat Russia single handed. I'm sure you don't mean that. 
Indeed, had they expected that they would have geared up as they are now.
Yes I do.
There is a vast difference between a country allocating a bit of its economic budget to defence and a country gearing up to war. 
UK's defence spending in 1940 was 46% of GDP. 

And my question was not "against a fully committed Western military" but against a Western military not fully committed and still only spend 1.5-2% on defence.

We were caught with our pants down last time this happened, I'd like to be fully dressed this time. 

Let me try and speak clearer.
If Putin decided to go for all out war as Hitler did he would increase spending on military hardware by ten fold (As we did in WW2) He could afford to do this by selling some of the huge natural resources Russia has to India etc, 

I do not think Russia would attack Germany or France, let alone the UK. But its quite possible he might attack Poland or Finland if the West is not prepared and ready to stop him. 
Us spending 2% of our budget on defence is not IMO being prepared. Particularly if he drove the attack home in a blitzkrieg style with overwhelming force. 

The bit you seem to miss is the bit where he increases production 10 fold and we don't. That is exactly how Hitler carried out his invasions so successfully, because we all believed that one country (Germany) could never overwhelm the combined countries of the rest of Europe. We caught up and won in the end but at huge cost in lives. 

I emphasise that I do not think Putin would win in the long run, but he is mad enough to try and if we are not prepared it could cost a lot of lives to push him back from ground gained. 

I'm suggesting Putin is already squeezing the oligarchs. That "defence" spending in Russia has risen by nearly 150% since the start of the Ukraine war. Do you think Iran has gifted all those missiles and drones to Russia? 
I am suggesting its what history tells us such tyrants do. 
Now we get to the nub of it. It would be easy to point to more important things needed, again its what we did when Churchill tried to warn the country before WW2. 
The measured voices said, it wont happen, he wouldn't dare, you've gone all Dr Strangelove. 
There are more important things to spend our money on, we're still recovering from WW1. 
Its all there in our history for us to read and learn. 

So much much would King Zany spend and how would he fund it. 
I would increase it to 2.5% across every NATO member, whether they build their own forces or contribute to other members more able to do so.

I would fund our increase by borrowing. Its a time of extreme need. We had Covid followed by the effects of Putin's invasion. I think we need to re-write our fiscal rules to deal with a coming emergency.
Foot note: At the end of WW2 our debt to GDP was 275% yet the country did not implode and we're still here

Perhaps you could tell me how borrowing money to improve public services and increase defence has a negative effect on public services. 
Helsinki is not so odd if you know your Russian History. That aside, do you really believe the Ukraine could stand against Russia if it fully mobilised? 





It is an arbitrary number, there is no number of how much we should spend to strengthen our armed forces, just as there is no number for the repair of the health service. Whatever number you choose some would say we need more, some would say we need less. 
Are you going to make the argument how much? 

Orac is right here Zany. Borrowing is not free money and is not unlimited. If you spend more money on “defence” , there is less money available for public services. You are trading a new hospital or school buildings addressing the concrete issues etc etc and spending the money on new tanks instead. You may feel that “defence” spending is still the biggest priority and hence new hospitals have to wait but you do need to be realistic and accept the choice you are making.

Frankly no idea why you feel Helsinki is most at risk. While Russia and Finland have fought wars in the past, Finland wasn’t under Soviet control when states such as the Baltic States were. They feel more at risk to me but I suggest we park that as something of a diversion.

I am sorry to keep labouring the point but the facts are that Western Europe outspends Russia at least 5 to 1 on military spending and even with limited western involvement ( no aircraft , no soldiers, no or very few tanks) , a determined Russia has failed to progress more than 100 miles or so. If you want me to sign off on throwing more money at weapons to reach your arbitrary 2.5%, I would need you to explain more convincingly why they are suddenly going to metamorphosise into an army capable of substantial progress against a full western defence including our aircraft and men. I don’t see the threat tbh.