You’re probably used to politicians telling you we’re living in the most risky times for decades.

But who’s going to pay for our protection?

Donald Trump is a lot less willing than the current president to pay for other countries’ defence.

As one UK source told me, “it doesn’t make sense for Europe’s defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.”

So Trump’s yield puts this question correct to the top of the list.

The UK government does schedule, eventually, to hit the target the Conservatives committed to – of spending 2.5% of the size of the economy on defence, a level last hit back in 2010.

But there’s a defence review underway, and a spending review of every penny spent in Whitehall to get through first.

They’re expected to arrive one after the other, next spring.

John Healey, the defence secretary, was granted an extra £3bn in the apportionment, which is a chunky sum of money – but in terms of defence spending, not a transformative amount of liquid assets.

And it’s only a top-up for a year, with no certainty over long-term financing.

A former minister said: “It’s very challenging to order for the years ahead – how long can we be talking, when the require is now?”

The government will not declare when they expect to hit the 2.5% target – and won’t commit to hitting it before the complete of the Parliament in 2029 – causing frustration in some quarters.

A elder source said “you either depend it is the most risky period in decades and you pool it properly, or you just don’t really depend it, so you don’t.”

And earlier on the Today programme, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labour of making an effective “cut in our defence apportionment” by including £3bn of Ukraine financing in it.

If Labour reach the 2.5% target, he said he’d welcome it, “but it’s got to be real money with a timetable”.

There is little disagreement that more resources are needed.

John Healey himself has acknowledged the military “have not been ready to fight”. A squeeze on financing over many years had made money tight – the forces “hollowed out”, according to Wallace.

The UK’s back for Ukraine, which has almost universal political back at home, has added to pressure.

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

Another former minister told me that financing “is absolutely urgent – it is urgent to assist Ukraine but the most urgent is where our forces are in danger – it’s not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are firing at our ships.”

And shortly before the election, the government’s recent national safety adviser Jonathan Powell wrote that a recent administration would require to reinforce the UK’s defence and safety “within the bounds allowed by a struggling economy”.

Some insiders debate rising threats around the globe cruel the UK should spend way more than 2.5% in any case.

Another former minister told me, “by any assess we are underspending – if you don’t buy the insurance policy you complete up having to pay yourself and the expense of real conflicts would be immense in comparison”.

A defence source told me, “we are going to have to make a shift on spending or we can put our fingers in our ears and aspiration we get through it – the Treasury has to do the maths on this – the way to stop spending 5 percent of GDP in the upcoming is to spend now.”

But it’s not just about how much money goes to defence – it’s also about how it’s spent.

Recent history is littered with examples of Ministry of Defence projects that overrun and overspend, some in eye-watering proportions.

One insider told me, “the worst thing we could do is spend more and spend it badly … the number needs to leave up but we absolutely require to get a proper grip of procurement.”

Several sources mentioned with some self-esteem, and indeed shock, the way the MoD had worked effectively and quickly with Ukraine to get the correct kit into their hands quickly.

One said the MoD had “proved it can spend liquid assets well but it needs to display it can do it consistently”.

Another said the British military had to shed its population where “only the most exquisitely perfect products may be bought”.

The MoD reckons it can crack down on waste and enhance the way things are bought and paid for with recent more centralised methods – even hiring a recent national armaments director to manage this.

As methods of warfare evolve on the battlefield, so too do the ways militaries respond with kit.

A former minister said: “overlook your large recent fantasy regiment – we can make what we have more lethal” instead.

The government says it wants to shake up and sort out the mess that defence procurement has become. But there is no question that is easier said than done.

While as a political event, Labour is instinctively uncomfortable with Donald Trump’s re-election, when it comes to defence there is some sympathy with his attitude towards European defence financing.

One insider said, “put on your incontinence pants, don’t listen to the rest of his politics, it’s none of our business.”

Another source told me, “Trump set a test to Europe last period and he was in part correct to,” pointing out that after his term in office the number of Nato countries which hit the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence did leave up.

Twenty-three now meet the 2% target, up from just six countries in 2021.

Rather than worrying about what Trump might do in office, they said, “a precondition for Trump to receive European defence seriously is for Europe to receive its own defence seriously.”

It’s challenging to view how that does not cruel more countries on the continent spending more of their own liquid assets.

“Let’s not kid ourselves, Nato does deter Russia, and we have to make sure that happens,” said a defence source.

America’s role in our safety is vital. But sources in government acknowledge that Europe, with dispute on its fringes, must play a vigorous budgetary part.

Eager to be seen as the chief in Nato, the UK is taking steps to boost defence cooperation across the continent – leaders recently signed a “landmark defence agreement” with Germany.

Donald Trump’s yield to the White House sets nerves jangling across the Atlantic about what it will cruel for Nato, what it will cruel for the US committment to back for Ukraine in terms of diplomacy and cold challenging liquid assets.

There is instinctive political unease here with his behaviour, his attitude to the law, convention, and the truth. But perhaps in the words of one source “it’s not a rule of law era, it’s a power era”.

Before the Trump win, there were already profound questions for our politicians about how they protect our interests.

The imperative to respond them is stronger now the unpredictable president is on his way back.

Perhaps the UK and the rest of Europe may require to display and pay for more of its own power to have a chance of getting the Trump White House on board.

Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg’s specialist insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.

BBC InDepth is the recent home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive recent brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that test assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to assist you make sense of a complicated globe. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting tiny but thinking large, and we desire to recognize what you ponder – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.