Much less than 5-10 years ago, and orders of magnitude less than the Russian military.

The pressures of fighting an existential war plus the demands of the public in a democracy have closed off most typical avenues for corruption, forcing a focus on battlefield results and effective supply to the front-line.

Nobody in the Ukrainian military is advocating for military spending for corrupt reasons, but for the country to remain independent in the face of a Russian military invasion.

What compelled you to write this? It's just a random point having no relationship to what you're replying to. Why have you typed this and pressed "reply"?

And the same UK taxpayer money is now being spent to ferociously defend Ukraine, and in turn European interests. That same UK taxpayer money is spent to promote freedom of the seas for global trade, whether it be the Hormuz, the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic, the Baltic or the Horn of Africa.

Defence spending is only as good as the government that controls it, but you can't be serious if you're discounting the importance of military readiness at all times, given the world we live in.

The UK's military spending has always been much more justifiable, especially given that the country actually spends a lot on education and healthcare too (and I will argue that both of them are some of the SOTA systems in the world currently, in spite of their challenges).

You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point.

But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?