You’re probably used to politicians telling you that we live in the most dangerous times in decades.

But who is going to pay for our protection?

Donald Trump is much less willing than the current president to pay for the defense of other countries.

As one UK source told me, “it makes no sense for Europe’s defense interests to depend on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.”

So Trump’s return puts this issue at the top of the list.

The UK government plans to eventually meet the target the Conservatives committed to: spending 2.5% of the size of the economy on defence, a level last reached in 2010.

But there is a defense review underway and a review of spending every penny spent in Whitehall to get out first.

They are expected to arrive one after another next spring.

John Healey, the defense secretary, was given an extra £3bn in the budget, which is a considerable sum of money, but in terms of defense spending, not a transformative amount of cash.

And it’s just a one-year add-on, with no certainty about long-term funding.

One former minister said: “It is very difficult to order for the years to come: how long can we be talking, when the need is now?”

The government will not say when it expects to reach the 2.5% target and will not commit to reaching it before the end of Parliament in 2029, causing frustration in some quarters.

A senior source said: “Either you believe it’s the most dangerous time in decades and fund it appropriately, or you just don’t believe it, so you don’t believe it.”

And earlier on the Today programme, former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labor of making an “effective cut to our defense budget” by including £3bn of funding for Ukraine.

If Labor hits the 2.5% target, he said he would welcome it, “but it has to be real money with a timetable.”

There is not much disagreement that more resources are needed.

John Healey himself has acknowledged that the military “is not prepared to fight.” Restricted funding for many years had made money scarce: forces “ran dry,” according to Wallace.

The UK’s support for Ukraine, which has almost universal political support at home, has increased the pressure.

According to the National Audit Office, the UK has committed almost £8 billion to Ukraine: air defense missiles, drones, cruise missiles, tanks and ships, as well as clothing and personal equipment.

Another former minister told me that the funding “is absolutely urgent; it is urgent to help Ukraine, but the most urgent thing is where our forces are in danger; it is not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are shooting at our ships.”

And shortly before the election, the government’s new national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, wrote that a new administration would need to strengthen the UK’s defense and security “within the limits permitted by a struggling economy.”

Some experts argue that growing threats around the world mean the UK should spend much more than 2.5% in any case.

Another former minister told me: “No matter how you look at it, we are spending less than necessary: ​​if you don’t take out the insurance policy, you end up having to pay for it yourself and the cost of real conflicts would be immense in comparison.”

A defense source told me: “We are going to have to take action on spending or we can cover our ears and hope to get through it; the Treasury has to do the math on this; the way to stop spending 5 The percentage of GDP in the future will be spent now.”

But it is not just about how much money is allocated to defense, but also how it is spent.

Recent history is littered with examples of MoD projects going overboard and overspending, some to staggering proportions.

One source told me: “the worst thing we can do is spend more and spend badly… the figure must increase, but it is absolutely necessary to properly control procurement.”

Several sources mentioned with some pride, and indeed surprise, the way in which the Ministry of Defense had worked effectively and quickly with Ukraine to quickly get the right equipment into its hands.

One said the MoD had “shown it can spend cash well, but needs to show it can do it consistently”.

Another said the British army had to get rid of its culture in which “only the most exquisitely perfect products can be bought.”

The MoD feels it can crack down on waste and improve the way things are bought and paid for with new, more centralized methods, including hiring a new national arms director to manage this.

As methods of warfare evolve on the battlefield, so do the ways the military responds with equipment.

One former minister said: “Forget your big new fantasy regiment; “Instead, we can make what we have more lethal.”

The government says it wants to reorganize and fix the chaos that defense procurement has become. But there is no doubt that this is easier said than done.

While as a political party the Labor Party is instinctively uncomfortable with Donald Trump’s re-election, when it comes to defense there is some sympathy with its attitude towards European defense funding.

A source said: “Put on your incontinence pants, don’t listen to the rest of their politics, it’s none of our business.”

Another source told me: “Trump challenged Europe last time and he was partly right to do so,” noting that after his term the number of NATO countries that reached the goal of spending at least 2% of their GDP on the defense went up.

Twenty-three now meet the 2% target, compared to only six countries in 2021.

Instead of worrying about what Trump might do in office, they said, “a precondition for Trump to be serious about European defense is for Europe to be serious about its own defense.”

It’s hard to see how that doesn’t mean more countries on the continent spend more of their own money.

“Let’s not kid ourselves, NATO deters Russia and we have to make sure that happens,” a defense source said.

The United States’ role in our security is vital. But government sources recognize that Europe, with conflicts on its margins, must play a vigorous financial role.

Keen to be seen as a NATO leader, the UK is taking steps to boost defense cooperation across the continent: leaders recently signed a “Historic defense agreement” with Germany.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House raises nerves across the Atlantic about what it will mean for NATO, what it will mean for the United States’ commitment to supporting Ukraine in terms of diplomacy and hard cash.

There is an instinctive political discomfort here about his behavior, his attitude towards the law, conventions and the truth. But perhaps, in the words of one source, “it is not an era of rule of law, it is an era of power.”

Before Trump’s victory, our politicians already had deep doubts about how they protect our interests.

The imperative to answer them is stronger now that the unpredictable president is back.

Perhaps the UK and the rest of Europe need to flex and pay for more of their own power to have a chance of getting the Trump White House on board.

BBC in depth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our best journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we will bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll also be showcasing thought-provoking content from BBC Sounds and iPlayer. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think. You can send us your comments by clicking the button below.