For the last 35 years, there's been a single dominant military power, America.

But after a spat in the White House with Lodomyselensky

and a speech by J.D. Vance calling on Europe to pay for its own security, it seems like they're

no longer interested in playing exactly the same role they have been. In Ukraine, they've cut off

the information sharing crucial to modern combat and have halted the delivery of new equipment.

Since then, there's been a flurry of activity in Europe.

The British and Europeans are looking set to rearm.

The Germans are going to change their spending limits to fund a new round of military escalation.

Britain and France, the continent's current military powers,

are planning to increase their spending even further.

Beyond the huge sums involved, what effect will this actually have?

The drones shatter the entire paradigm of war based around major pieces of kit,

like aircraft carriers and tanks.

And what would a re-armed European power actually be doing, if not just running operations

for their more competent allies like the Americans, and like they did in the genocide in Gaza,

the Israelis?

To find out what's really at play, and to find out what we could do with all this

investment instead, I asked Ken Rogali, a senior research fellow at the think tank, Commonwealth.

He has the most comprehensive answer going to the question of what we should do instead.

Instead of re-arming, he argues, we should turn government investment

and workers' democratic control to the task of fighting climate change. In his report, called

a Lucas Plan for the 21st century, this rather general point becomes crystal clear and pragmatic.

...