Defence policy

Subterms

    Latest story

    250 Shares38 Views

    The Guardian view on UK military strategy: prepare for a US retreat – or be left gravely exposed | Editorial

    by

    With the prime minister’s Churchillian claims that “the front line is here”, the public might expect a military posture that meets the drama of the moment. Yet the promised rise in defence spending – from 2.3% to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 – suggests something less than full-scale mobilisation. The strategic defence review is systematic and detailed, but it remains an exercise in tightly bounded ambition. It speaks of daily cyber-attacks and undersea sabotage, but proposes no systemic institutional overhaul or acute surge in resilience. Given the developing dangers, it is surprising not to spell out a robust home-front framework.Instead, it is a cautious budget hike in the costume of crisis – signalling emergency while deferring real commitment for military financing. The review suggests that the more ambitious spending target of 3% of GDP, still shy of Nato’s 3.5% goal, is delayed to the next parliament. The plan is not to revive Keynesianism in fatigues. It is a post-austerity military modernisation that is technocratic and geopolitically anxious. It borrows the urgency of the past without inheriting its economic boldness.The review marks a real shift: it warns of “multiple, direct threats” for the first time since the cold war and vows to reverse the “hollowing out” of Britain’s armed forces. But in an age of climate emergencies and democratic drift, UK leadership should rest on multilateralism, not pure militarism. Declaring Russian “nuclear coercion” the central challenge, and that the “future of strategic arms control … does not look promising”, while sinking £15bn into warheads, risks fuelling escalation instead of pursuing arms control.Given the war in Ukraine, there is an ominous warning about changing US “security priorities”. This calls into question the wisdom of being overly reliant on America, which is now internally unstable and dismantling global public goods – such as the atmospheric data that drones rely on for navigation. Left unsaid but clearly underlying the report is the idea that the old defence model is no longer sufficient – for example, when maritime adversaries can weaponise infrastructure by sabotaging undersea cables, or where critical data systems are in commercial hands. It cannot be right that Ukraine’s sovereignty depends on the goodwill of the world’s richest man. But the private satellite network Starlink keeps Ukrainian hospitals, bases and drones online, leaving Kyiv hostage to the whims of its volatile owner, Elon Musk.The menace of hybrid warfare – including disinformation, cyber-attacks, economic pressure, deployment of irregular armed groups and use of regular forces – intensified in the last decade. This should see Britain forge deeper institutional ties with European partners, not just military but in infrastructure and information technologies. This would allow for a sovereign digital strategy for European nations to free them from dependency on mercurial actors.Though the review gestures toward greater societal involvement, it stops short of articulating a whole-of-society doctrine like Norway’s. This, when some analysts say the third world war has already begun with a slow, global breakdown of the post-1945 institutional order. The defence review should be about more than missiles and missions. It must also be about whether the country can keep the lights on, the gas flowing, the internet up and the truth intact. This review sees the threats, but not yet the system needed to confront them. In that gap lies the peril. More

    More stories

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Now is not the time for the US or Europe to go it alone, warns Nato chief

      by

      Nato’s secretary general has told the US and Europe it is “not the time to go it alone” amid reports that Washington and some European leaders want to weaken their commitments to the transatlantic military alliance.Mark Rutte said in a speech in Warsaw that the US needed to be told that European countries would “step up” and lift their defence spending – while they needed to hear that Washington would not abandon them.“Let me be absolutely clear, this is not the time to go it alone. Not for Europe or North America,” said the Dutch head of the alliance. “The global security challenges are too great for any of us to face on our own. When it comes to keeping Europe and North America safe, there is no alternative to Nato.”Europe “needs to know that Uncle Sam still has our back”, Rutte continued, but in turn “America also needs to know that its Nato allies will step up. Without restrictions and without capability gaps” because “reassurance is a two-way street”.The 76-year-old alliance has come under intense pressure following the election of Donald Trump, most recently with key administration members complaining about European defence “free-loading” in a confidential chat on the Signal app that leaked when a journalist from the Atlantic was added to the group by mistake.On his first trip to Europe earlier this year, Pete Hegseth, the new defence secretary, said the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and signalled that cuts to the number of American troops in Europe were a possibility.Since then, some reports had suggested that the US was willing to relinquish its hold on the position of Nato’s top military commander, the supreme allied commander Europe (Saceur), a position first held by Dwight Eisenhower and currently held by Gen Christopher Cavoli, whose tour expires in the summer.One Nato source said that idea had been dropped. A second said the UK was particularly keen to ensure the US remains inside the alliance at a time when any sustained end to the fighting in Ukraine could allow Russia to distribute 600,000 troops elsewhere along member states’ eastern flank.On Friday last week, Trump himself appeared to dismiss the speculation. When asked directly about the US being prepared to give up the top military command, he replied that the alliance was “gone until I came along” before praising Rutte, his predecessor and European members for increasing defence spending.“Nato is solid, is strong but they have to treat us fairly,” the US president added.Another report suggested Europe’s leading military powers wanted to devise a plan to shift the financial and military burden to European capitals over the next five to 10 years and present it to the US, amid worries about whether Washington would come to the defence of Europe in a crisis.However, this idea was dismissed by British sources who argued that the idea that the US contribution to European security could be replaced in five years or so was “living in cloud cuckoo land”.Rutte said he recognised that “the US commitment to Nato comes with a clear expectation” and “that European allies and Canada take more responsibility for our shared security”. He said he would work towards developing this at the next leaders’ summit in The Hague in June.Nato members have begun to announce some increases in defence spending, with the UK promising to lift its budget from 2.33% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027, starting with an extra £2.2bn next year. Germany has agreed to loosen its debt rules to allow for additional spending on defence under the incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      After America: can Europe learn to go it alone without the US?

      by

      The German ­electronics firm Hensoldt has a backlog of orders for its technology, ­including radars that protect Ukraine from Russian airstrikes. Meanwhile, Germany’s car industry is struggling with low European demand and competition from China.As Europe worries about how it can weather the economic and ­political turmoil unleashed by Donald Trump, executives from Munich and Düsseldorf say they have at least a partial answer.In January, Hensoldt offered to take on workers laid off by the car parts suppliers Bosch and Continental. The defence giant Rheinmetall made a similar ­proposal last year, and in February announced it would repurpose two automotive component factories.It was a pivot that offered hope amid America’s rapid ­dismantling of the postwar global order – ­protecting jobs and Germany’s industrial base as access to US ­markets shrinks, while ramping up Europe’s capacity to protect itself.As politicians around the world try to work out how best to ­protect their countries from Trump’s ­capricious policymaking, the one constant in all their calculations for the future is a diminished American role in their countries. Trump has mooted plans for a 25% tariff on EU goods, including cars, and has already put duties at that level on steel and aluminium from the bloc.In February, his vice-president, JD Vance, launched a blistering attack on European democracy in Munich, questioning whether it was worth defending.In his first term, Trump touted decoupling from China as a way to bolster US jobs and the economy against a rapacious rival. Now, in his second term, he is pursuing a much broader decoupling from the ­country’s historical allies – a shift that few had anticipated or were prepared to face.The new US administration is sealing off its markets, retreating from America’s global security role, and cutting soft-power projects that aimed to shape the world through research, aid and culture.The only form of greater American presence beyond the country’s ­current borders that seems to ­interest Trump is ­territorial ­expansion – ­encouraging, ­perhaps, for a dictator such as Vladimir Putin as he wages an ­imperial war in Ukraine, but ­unwelcome and ­alarming elsewhere.“The idea of the US ­abandoning western Europe was ­unimaginable even a decade ago, because its role there also secures broader American influence in the world,” said Phillip Ayoub, a professor of international relations at University College London.“There is a comparative ­advantage to strong alliances because they make you richer in trade and safer because they deter other powers.”Trump’s vision of the world rejects that view, casting his ­country as a naively magnanimous ­superpower that has for decades funded and policed the world while getting little more than debt and ingratitude for its troubles.View image in fullscreenYet if postwar American ­presidents did not pursue the ­territorial empire that Trump now dreams of, they wielded an ­imperial power not reflected on maps. Decisions made in Washington DC reshaped countries from Chile to Iraq without the participation or consent of their populations.And the global order he is ­tearing down made the country so rich and powerful that for a brief, heady moment around the turn of the ­millennium, the US elite embraced the idea that history was over, and that human society had reached its peak and permanent form in the ­liberal democracy embodied in their constitution.The details of the new American relationship with the world are still being worked out day by day in court battles at home and trade and diplomatic negotiations abroad, but the impact of Trump’s presidency will last long into the future.“An election could change ­policy in Washington DC. But the new ­reality is that from government to government you could have a ­different attitude to the US’s place in the world,” Ayoub said. “This retreat will be factored into policymaking everywhere now.”For now, the ­immediate priority in most ­countries is limiting the extent of tariffs and the impact of US cuts, in areas ranging from aid to defence.Geography and the impact of ­previous free trade deals have ­combined to make neighbours of the US extremely vulnerable to its tariffs. Exports to the US account for a quarter of Mexico’s GDP. In Canada, where all other potential trading partners are an ocean or half a continent away, they are about a fifth of GDP.European countries may be less immediately vulnerable to a trade squeeze, with exports to the US accounting for less than 3% of the European Union’s GDP.But budgets from London to Warsaw are also strained by the need to ramp up defence ­spending to make up for the US retreat, both from immediate support for the Ukrainian forces battling Russia, and from the longer-term backing of European defence. Even ­optimistic assessments suggest it will take the best part of a decade before the continent’s own defence ­capacity can match the protection currently offered by the US, excluding its nuclear deterrent.The pain of breaking up or reshaping major relationships does not only fall on one party – ­something even Trump has ­admitted. The cost of some tariffs will be passed on to US ­consumers, and American businesses may lose customers.One early high-profile casualty could be Lockheed Martin, which produces F-35 jet fighters. Contracts allowing the US to restrict how the planes are used by allies caused little debate during friendlier times. Now, in Berlin and other capitals, defence ministers are worrying about a ­possible “kill switch” and hesitating over major new orders.Longer term, Trump could also fuel a ­cultural “decoupling”, with attacks on the arts and academia ­driving highly talented ­individuals to flee the US or avoid it.Several artists have cancelled tours, and the concert pianist András Schiff last week said last week he would no longer work in the US because of Trump. He had already boycotted Russia.Academics at elite British ­universities say they have seen a surge in job applications from US-based colleagues, many ­willing to lose tenure and take a ­considerable pay cut in order to move across the Atlantic. A French university that offered ­“sanctuary” to US researchers said it had received 40 applications, and one academic moved this month.As with the economy, the US’s ­cultural standing is not under direct threat. American music – much of it made by ­people who publicly oppose Trump – will be consumed worldwide. The Oscars are likely to remain the most ­coveted prize for cinema, the Emmys for ­television, the Pulitzers for ­journalism. Yet an exodus would still be ­damaging in a country where research and the creative arts are key drivers of growth, and benefit the places they settle instead – the long-term US allies that Trump sees as threats.The US president has promised voters that where his economic policies cause pain it will be short-term, and pave the way for long term prosperity in America.To critics, they look like a ­template for a poorer, more ­dangerous and fragmented world, where any limited benefits of ­decoupling are as likely to be reaped by a British university or a German defence firm as by Americans.View image in fullscreenCultureThe hit to America’s creative ­sector, from budget freezes and threats to the federal bodies and national schemes that fund ­museums, ­galleries, theatres and libraries, is set to take a toll on its income from tourism – and send visitors to Britain and Europe instead.In response to the second Trump presidency, some international ­artists are already pulling out of ­appearances in American venues, or at music festivals, and the likely knock-on effect is a reduction in ­visits from abroad.Last week, the Canadian singer/songwriter Leslie Hudson cancelled her American tour, saying on social media: “Like a lot of Canadians, and so many others, I no longer feel safe to enter the country.” The German violinist Christian Tetzlaff cancelled a spring tour in protest at the new administration’s policies, with particular reference to Ukraine.In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the managing director of City theatre, James McNeel, has ­spoken of a growing funding threat. “What we need more than anything is stability,” he says.Prior to the pandemic, the US Travel Association ­valued the total spending of the near-80 million tourists who came into the US at about $2 trillion (£1.5tn).This was supported by federal investment in ­infrastructure and the ­airline industry, but travel experts also traced back much of this tourism success to the diverse image of many of its cities. Art tourism was a big part of this, with art fans who ­travelled to North America in 2023 ­accounting for more than a ­quarter of the global total. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago boast ­celebrated museums and ­galleries, and the rise of immersive art and public installations has broadened this appeal. The attraction of art fairs such as Art Basel Miami has also grown internationally. In 2023, it was reportedly visited by more than 79,000 people.But Trump has made rapid and determined cuts to all museum ­projects tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, ­affecting the Smithsonian Institution, which has closed its DEI office. The National Gallery of Art also closed its office of belonging and inclusion, while exhibitions across the ­country have been cancelled. The biggest impact may well be on cultural ­tourism associated with LGBTQ+ communities and climate activism.Trump at one point intended for 2026 to be a bumper year for American tourism, with a ­“special one-time festival” planned for “­millions of people from around the world” at the Iowa State Fairground to mark 250 years since ­independence.The level of ­international advance booking will be watched.Likewise, a new status for London, Berlin and Paris as “refuge cities” for American artists is being predicted.British and European ­institutions might also soon have to make room for American artwork. The Washington Post has reported that large collections of public art have been left without professional ­security or conservationists.View image in fullscreenEconomicsShould the UK government decide to untangle the economy’s many ties with the US, it would need to tread carefully. America is the single ­largest market for Britain’s exports, ranging from the most sophisticated components in US navy submarines to artisan scented candles.Official figures show total trade in goods and services – exports plus imports – between Britain and the US was £294bn in the year to 30 September, 2024. The stock of investment by US companies in the UK stood at £708bn in 2023, or 34% of total of foreign direct investment.Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is hoping to sign a limited trade deal with his counterparts in Washington that covers digital services and commits both countries to secure supply chains for vital goods.But a deal with any scope or ­judicial oversight will need Congress to agree, and that is far from certain to happen.UK manufacturers could begin to wean themselves off US raw ­materials and components, but the presumption must be that they traded with the Americans in the first place because they provided the best products. Exports could be directed back at the EU, though without rejoining the single ­market and customs union, the benefit would be limited.It would be a harder job switching services exports away from the US. The common language may often divide the two nations, but in ­practice the sector is a huge boon.In Brussels, officials believe any kind of trade deal with the US is off the agenda.As Donald Trump is only too well aware, the EU has a large trade ­surplus with America. In 2014 the surplus was about €100bn. By last year the gap had grown to almost €200bn. For this reason, the EU has already adopted a more ­confrontational stance.The British Chambers of Commerce says almost two-thirds of factory owners that export to the US are worried. European ­manufacturers have revealed similar concerns in recent surveys.Some are comforted by figures showing the US has a trade surplus in goods with the UK and how, in practice, trade and investment relationships exist well away from the White House and remain robust.However, businesses thought the same about Brussels after the vote to leave the EU. It didn’t happen and a breakdown in relations ensued.That said, rekindling relations with the EU can be part of the answer. Reset talks are under way and there is a leaders’ summit on 19 May that should address at least some trade barriers. The UK might find that food exports become easier and it gains access to a wider range of raw ­materials and ­components by rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention.Still, the US will remain a major trading partner and upsetting the Trump White House could have huge consequences.View image in fullscreenDefenceDonald Trump’s abandonment of Europe’s defence and disdain for Nato marks one of the most ­profound and influential breaks with longstanding US policy, even for a supremely disruptive leader.Many US presidents have grumbled about European over-reliance on American deterrence in recent decades, with predecessors including Barack Obama demanding allies spend more on their own armies.But their frustrations were rooted in concern that European defence cuts undermined an ­alliance that almost everyone in Washington – across the political divide – saw as critical to American global leadership.Trump, in contrast, appears to be seeking European spending to replace or supersede Nato, not strengthen it. He says Washington’s defence priorities are now deterring China in Asia and fighting organised crime at home.In his first term, he touted the idea of withdrawing America from the alliance, which was formed in 1949 for protection against the Soviet Union. This time he has opted to undermine it from within.The president himself has ­publicly contemplated ignoring Article 5, the core mutual defence clause at the heart of the transatlantic ­alliance, which requires Nato ­countries to come to the aid of any member that is attacked. It has only been invoked once – by the US after the 11 September attacks on Washington and New York in 2001.Trump said the US might ­condition any support for other members on military spending, and questioned if US allies would come to the country’s aid if in need. His administration is considering giving up the Nato command role inaugurated by war hero president Dwight D Eisenhower and held by America ever since, NBC reported last week.Europe was already scrambling to increase defence spending and ­coordination when the US halted military aid shipments to Ukraine, and intelligence-sharing with Kyiv earlier this month.Trump’s decision came after a spectacular on-camera showdown in the Oval Office with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But his willingness to cut loose a force that Washington has trained, armed and backed, and which is fighting a major US rival, stunned even some of his own political allies.European governments who have also spent billions on Ukraine’s defence, and have been dealing with covert Russian sabotage and spy operations across the continent, were not informed in advance.The flow of weapons and aid has now resumed, but the message was clear. Major European military powers, including the UK and Germany, are now reportedly racing to put together a five- to 10-year plan for a managed transfer of European defence, to stave off any more abrupt moves from Washington.Trump’s unpredictability has been heightened by his choice of ­leaders for key security roles, ­including a former Fox television host, Pete Hegseth, as defence secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard, who has a long ­history of pro-Russian views, as director of national intelligence.Security experts warn that ­turmoil in the leadership and ­management of intelligence agencies may also lead to a less visible but highly ­damaging defence decoupling – of the relationship between America’s spies and the secret services of its allies.View image in fullscreenDiplomacyThe votes in the United Nations marking the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ­provided a bleak snapshot of the yawning diplomatic divide between Donald Trump’s America and the country’s traditional allies.On February 25, the US joined international pariahs Russia, Belarus and North Korea to vote against a resolution condemning Russia as an aggressor state and calling on it to remove its troops from Ukraine.The wording rejected by Trump’s diplomats had been put forward by Ukraine, whose defence the US has funded, and the European Union, Washington’s partner in that effort. It passed in the general assembly with backing from 93 countries.The isolationist bent of Trump’s politics extends beyond the ­economy and defence, into international diplomacy. He has ordered the US to withdraw from a host of global organisations and initiatives, from the World Health Organization to the Paris climate agreement.The process of taking the world’s second biggest emitter of planet-heating pollution out of the accord to tackle global ­emissions will take about a year. As with the UN vote on Ukraine, that move puts the world’s most ­powerful democracy in unusual ­company, with Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only countries outside the deal.Trump imposed sanctions on officials at the International Criminal Court over arrest warrants it had issued for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, who was the country’s defence minister at the time.His predecessor Joe Biden had also criticised the court, but such a direct attack on an institution ­established with broad international support was unprecedented.Several former British ambassadors to Washington warned this month that there has been a seismic and perhaps permanent shift in the so-called “special relationship” between the two countries, meaning that the UK will need to seek out other allies.“It’s difficult to find either a conceptual area in ­international relations or a particular geographical area where our interests are really converging at the moment,” Nigel Sheinwald, the ­ambassador from 2007 to 2012, told a ­parliamentary committee.“On more or less any big ­foreign policy issue that we’re dealing with today, we don’t agree with the United States… whether that is the Middle East, whether it’s Iran, whether it’s climate change, China, but above all on Europe itself,” Sheinwald said. More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      If Britain must rearm, how to pay for it? Stiffen the sinews; summon up the taxes | Polly Toynbee

      by

      “A new era is upon us.” Ursula von der Leyen was not holding back. This is a world turned upside down, changed beyond recognition. Leaders across Europe are echoing the alarm sent out by the European Commission president, and rippling across the continent, Canada and elsewhere: that we face a “clear and present danger on a scale that none of us has seen in our adult lifetime”. She has proposed a plan that would offer €800bn (£660bn) for immediate rearming, with a European sky shield to protect Ukraine.The hooligan Russian asset in the White House has changed everything so profoundly that it is hard to keep track. The US, whose coat-tails we clung to, whose culture we revelled in, whose cleverness dazzled and stupidity confounded, is now the enemy. The shock feels viscerally personal because American culture is deep in our veins at all ages, from Sesame Street to Marvel, from Philip Roth to Philip Glass, the Oscars to Silicon Valley, like it or not. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we obediently followed their blunders, and 642 British soldiers died, as Keir Starmer adroitly reminded JD Vance in parliament. Our glamorous friend has turned fiend. How do we cauterise that off us? Or reconfigure the map of the world in terms of friends and foes?Former UK ambassadors to Washington ruminated over this “seismic” shift, which has shaken every norm from their Foreign Office days. “This is not a blip in the relationship, something fundamental is going on,” one old knight warned a Lords select committee, while another cautioned that the US giving up on Europe in favour of Russia was likely a “current reality”. Sir David Manning pinpointed Britain’s specific anguish at this moment, the downside of the so-called special relationship: as Europe galvanises to rearm, unlike our continental neighbours, we depend on the US for our defence.With every new shock wave, Britain feels this trauma in its marrow. Yet there is hesitancy in government about addressing the nation with a call to arms, as French president Emmanuel Macron has done, warning: “the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”Look at the remarkable response of Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, lifetime financial conservative and fiscal dogmatist, as he grasps the severity of the times: he will reverse all his previous fiscal policies and his nation’s usual dread over borrowing, breaking their “basic law” with a huge €500bn loosening of debt rules to rearm. This amounts to “one of the most historic paradigm shifts in German postwar history”, according to Deutsche Bank. German borrowing costs shot up, but so have predictions of German growth from a sluggish 0.8% to 2%, with investors sending industrial stocks soaring. But note this: in his fiscal sea change, rearming will not be accompanied by any cuts to German social spending.How about Britain? Our government has announced no change to fiscal policy. Living within our self-imposed straitjacket, our rearming will be paid for by cuts to aid, benefits and most departments, as Rachel Reeves this week sends her plans to the Office for Budget Responsibility to prove the books are balanced. Yet the promises the government has made are impossible to keep: no more borrowing, no more tax rises and no return to austerity. These are terrible choices – the aid cut already breaks a manifesto pledge – destroying trust whichever way Labour turns. But which is the least bad?A copy of Duncan Grant’s portrait of John Maynard Keynes hangs by my desk, a reminder to reach for his 1940 prescription How to Pay for the War, a book that spelled out the necessary financial sacrifices of the time. Emergency action needed then was draconian, rapidly increasing production while drastically reducing consumption, introducing rationing and diverting everything to the war effort. In comparison, what’s needed in this new emergency is a pinprick, to raise the 3% of GDP for defence spending that Starmer is aiming for. Take just this one measure: in a disgraceful (and failed) act of crude election bribery, Jeremy Hunt cut 4p off employees’ national insurance. Restoring that would cover the cost of this extra defence spending alone, says Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies; so would 2p more on income tax for all.Labour’s Treasury team winces at the very thought of any further tax rises, after the walloping Reeves got for the £40bn tax rise in October’s budget. They are jumpy: remember Liz Truss’s mini-budget, maxi-catastrophe, they say. Look how even small tax changes such as the farmers’ inheritance tax can create a storm; some policies make absolute sense in economic and fairness terms, but crash politically. Besides, tax rises that cut people’s spending money risk stunting growth, they say – but then so do cuts to public spending. Borrow more? That adds to the mammoth £100bn a year we spend servicing existing debt, they say. But we are now on the hunt for the least-worst option – and Britain still pays less tax than similar countries.Starmer has risen to the needs of the hour. But he has yet to address his citizens on what rearming means, and what it requires of them. We like to think of ourselves as warlike, and at the ready. We are good at displays of national pride and national parades, with a four-day celebration planned for the 80th anniversary of VE day in May. But tax and financial sacrifice were essential parts of that victory. The alternative – miserable cuts to benefits for the weakest, and stripping yet more from threadbare stricken public services – is the worst of all the bad options. In our finest hour, Britain shed its traditional tax-phobia. If ever there was a moment to stiffen the sinews and summon up the taxes, it is now: for the defence of the realm.

      Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer’s diplomatic flurry puts him at centre of attempts to shape Ukraine-Russia deal

      by

      As Keir Starmer and his aides huddled to discuss their response to Friday’s calamitous White House meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the prime minister’s team pondered whether to issue a statement on social media.Already messages of support were flooding in for the Ukrainian president from other European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron of France and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen.But the prime minister decided to stay silent and instead display his backing with action rather than words. After a series of phone calls on Friday night, Starmer brought forward a planned visit by Zelenskyy to London, giving him the opportunity for a symbolic meeting at Downing Street followed by an audience with King Charles.“I picked up the phone to President Trump, and I picked up the phone to President Zelensky,” Starmer told the BBC on Sunday. “That was my response.”Starmer’s flurry of diplomatic activity has resulted in a Franco-British peace effort which puts the prime minister at the centre of European attempts to shape any deal between Moscow and Kyiv.“Starmer’s was a big gesture,” said Bronwen Maddox, the director of the Chatham House thinktank. “Having Zelenskyy here, having that meeting, mattered. There is no need to go rushing around tweeting. He’s now trying to be a bridge between the US and Zelenskyy and Europe, which is a reasonable ambition.”Some even believe this could be Starmer’s “Falklands moment”, referring to the way Margaret Thatcher took on Argentina over the Falkland Islands and in doing so rebooted her flagging premiership. By Sunday morning, Starmer was being backed by the leaders of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.“It’s really important that this summit the prime minister is having today goes well and we support him in that,” the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, said on Sunday.Starmer’s calls with Trump and Zelenskyy on Friday night focused on trying to get the minerals deal between the two countries back on track.One Downing Street official said: “We need to ensure there is a minerals agreement and there is a plan for stopping the fighting and giving Ukraine the security guarantees it needs. The minerals deal is still on the table.”View image in fullscreenOfficials rejected reports that Starmer’s call with Zelenskyy had been “emotional”, but said the Ukrainian president had clearly found his encounter with Trump “bruising”. The two men agreed that Zelenskyy would visit London 24 hours earlier than planned, allowing him time for a longer meeting in Downing Street before a trip to Sandringham on Sunday to meet King Charles.Officials said the visit to see the king was a deliberate message to Washington, where Trump is eagerly awaiting his own audience with the monarch, with US officials pushing for a state visit as soon as this year.Starmer then spent Saturday around the cabinet table in discussions with Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, and other senior officials. They had come to the conclusion there was little they could do to restart US-Ukrainian talks, so decided to come up with an alternative plan to help shape the peace deal.The plan they hit upon was a separate set of discussions, this time involving Britain, France, Ukraine and potentially one or two others, to formulate their own prospective deal to present to the US. The talks would provide a counterbalance to those between the US and Russia which have excluded Ukraine and European countries.Starmer called Macron, who welcomed the idea. But there was one more hurdle to clear: the prime minister had to call the US president for the second time in two days to make sure he was not opposed.Officials briefed on the call would not say what Trump’s reaction to the idea was, or even whether he indicated he would not stand in the way. But the prime minister was sufficiently emboldened by the conversation that he decided to announce the talks on the BBC on Sunday morning.“The second Trump call was much more focused on not wanting to go back over what has happened, but saying, if we move forward with this other plan, would you be interested in us doing that?” said one British official. “There is no point in us doing this if the US didn’t feel there was space for that. Clearly we are doing it, so we thought it was a worthwhile exercise.”Saturday evening culminated with Starmer’s Downing Street talks with Zelenskyy. In front of the assembled press, the prime minister took the unusual step of leaving No 10 to greet Zelenskyy from his car, before walking him back down the street again after their meeting.View image in fullscreen“And as you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom,” Starmer told his Ukrainian counterpart. “We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take.”Sunday was yet another intense day of diplomacy for the prime minister, who began by speaking to the leaders of all three Baltic states and then hosted the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, at Downing Street. Meloni, who arguably has the best relations with Trump of any European leader, has called for an immediate summit between the US, EU and other allied countries to discuss Ukraine.From there, Starmer travelled to Lancaster House for his defence summit, which was attended by representatives from across Europe, as well as officials from Turkey and Nato.British officials are aware that all this activity may result in very little. They have yet to secure their main objective – a promise from Trump to offer military backing to any British and European troops posted to secure a new border between Russia and Ukraine.But for now, Downing Street is delighted that the prime minister has managed to navigate the turbulent geopolitics of a Trump-led US, and in doing so prove that post-Brexit Britain can still play a global leadership role.“It’s a testament to the relationship the prime minister has with the presidents of both America and Ukraine that he was able to host Zelenskyy and speak to Trump not once but twice over the days,” said one official.Additional reporting by Angela Giuffrida in Rome More

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      In this dangerous age, Britain needs to exert soft power as well as the hard stuff | Andrew Rawnsley

      by

      Shortly before he flew to Washington, Sir Keir Starmer turned up in the Commons, put on his sombre voice and declared: “Everything has changed.” One of the more startling transformations has been to Sir Keir himself. The Labour leader came to office thinking, as did most of those who voted for him, that he was going to be a domestically orientated prime minister with primary ambitions to improve living standards, build lots of homes and rejuvenate public services. That’s what “change”, his one-word election slogan, was supposed to be about. When he originally selected his overriding “five missions”, the defence of the realm didn’t make the cut.His central definition today is as a geopolitically focused prime minister who is promising to spend more on guns, missiles and warplanes and less on international aid. More British bullets will be purchased at the expense of succour to the impoverished and desperate of the world. This shift gives a flintier profile to his leadership, but not in a way that either supporters or opponents anticipated during last summer’s election. Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget. In the days since the decision was announced, they have taken to wondering what manner of Labour government is this?The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. This has had a more profound impact on Sir Keir than any other event. A prime minister who used to earn his living as a human rights lawyer has had a crash course in realpolitik from the nakedly transactional practitioner of great power games who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue.Sir Keir came away from his encounter at the White House on Thursday empty-handed when it came to securing a bankable guarantee that there will be US military cover for any British and French peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine. What the prime minister did win was an apparent blessing for the Chagos Islands deal, puncturing Nigel Farage’s repeated claims that the White House is opposed to it. There were encouraging noises that the UK may swerve US tariffs and pats on the head for Sir Keir from his host for being a “special man” and a “very tough negotiator”. The price was paid in the currency of ingratiation. This was at its most toe-curling when the prime minister delved into his jacket pocket to flourish an invite from the king for the US president to make an “unprecedented”, “truly historic” second state visit to the UK. Excuse me while I find something to retch into. The other tribute to the Maga King was setting a 2027 deadline for lifting British defence spending to 2.5% of GDP with 3% as the ultimate target.Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. Downing Street reeled at the callous and chilling monstering of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a democratically elected leader fighting for his country’s freedom against tyranny, at the White House on Friday. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.I’ve been among those anticipating this pivot. Given how menacing the world looked even before Trump’s return to the Oval Office, it was not sustainable to leave Britain’s armed forces in such a parlous condition that our own defence secretary describes them as “hollowed out”. The intelligence chiefs and the top brass have become increasingly clamourous about the growing scale and intensity of threats from a spectrum of malevolent adversaries.The issue then becomes whether the money will be spent well or wastefully. The Ministry of Defence has a rotten record when it comes to equipping the armed forces in a timely and cost-effective way. The onus is now on John Healey and the service chiefs to prove that they can get the maximum bang from the taxpayers’ extra bucks.The pain inflicted on the international aid budget will be brutal. Sir Keir was all crocodile tears when he intoned that regrettably “hard choices” had to be made, as if more money for defence could only be found by stealing it from aid programmes. There were many other options for a government that spends in excess of £1tn a year. These included being less generous towards other demands for spending, bearing down on escalating costs in areas of welfare or raising more from taxation. Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option.This is the superficially clever and unashamedly cynical choice when it comes to electoral calculations. Polling suggests that cutting aid is a popular option with around two-thirds of voters. There’s an assumption among Labour strategists that aid is particularly resented by the kind of voter who supported Labour at the election and is now flirting with Reform or has already switched to it. There’s some truth in this analysis, but it is not the whole truth. There’s danger for Labour among the significant wedge of voters who chose the party at the election partly on the basis that it was more compassionate, enlightened and internationalist than the Tories. They didn’t expect Labour to outdo the last Conservative government in slashing the development budget.The case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests. These arguments will be highly familiar to Sir Keir and his cabinet because it was precisely the case they used to make themselves when they berated the Conservatives for raiding the budget. As Labour’s election manifesto put it, international aid helps make “the world a safer, more prosperous place”.The UK used to be able to make the claim that its record on helping the poorer parts of the planet made us a soft power superpower. As recently as 2020, the UK was one of only seven wealthy countries that met the UN target to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid. The Conservatives cut that to 0.5% under Boris Johnson and it will now be slashed down to just 0.3%. Since a hefty chunk of the budget is being spent on asylum-seekers within Britain, the net amount supporting international development will be even more miserly. Programmes threatened include those alleviating poverty, tackling disease, improving the education of young people and addressing the climate crisis.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis was a humiliation for Annaliese Dodds who was presented with a fait accompli just 24 hours before the cuts were announced. Number 10 clearly reckoned there was a slight risk that she would resign as international development minister, or decided it wasn’t terribly bothered even if she did. She has quit with the warning that denuding the international development budget will only encourage Russia’s aggressive effort to increase its presence worldwide. Blood must be rushing to the head of David Lammy. Justifying the cut has obliged the foreign secretary to stand on his head. It is only very recently that he was wagging a finger at the Americans by telling them it was a “big strategic mistake” to let Elon Musk eviscerate the US development budget. He accompanied that with the warning that China would exploit the vacuum to further its influence.I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Starmer’s aid cuts: they won’t buy security, but they will undermine it | Editorial

      by

      Politics is about choices. Some are forced on governments by circumstance. Others are self‑imposed. Labour’s decision to cut the aid budget to “pay” for increased defence spending is firmly in the latter category. It is also wrong – forcing the world’s poor to pay for Britain’s safety. This is a false economy. Cutting aid will make the world more unstable, not less. The very crises that fuel conflict – poverty, failed states, climate disasters and mass displacement – will only worsen with less development funding. Labour’s logic is self‑defeating: diverting money from aid to defence does not buy security; it undermines it.The numbers tell the story. Despite government attempts to inflate the amounts involved, the extra £5bn‑£6bn for defence is tiny relative to Britain’s GDP. The UK could easily absorb this through borrowing – especially in a global financial system where sterling is heavily traded – or, if the government prefers, through a modest wealth tax. Yet Sir Keir Starmer has chosen to frame this as a zero-sum game, where aid must give way to security. Why? Because this is not about economic necessity – it’s about political positioning. Labour wants to prove that it can be fiscally disciplined even when the numbers don’t demand it. It wants to neutralise Tory attacks, even when the real battle is over priorities, not affordability.It is also a move that aligns with Donald Trump’s worldview. The US president wants to close down the US government’s main overseas aid agency, treating it as an expensive indulgence rather than a pillar of foreign policy. Sir Keir is set to go to Washington this week. A UK prime minister that echoes Mr Trump’s “America first” instincts on defence and aid may find the meeting more congenial. If so, Sir Keir may be taking the idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” a little too literally.Labour doesn’t just believe in fiscal discipline, it believes that it must believe in fiscal discipline and it constructs a justification for that belief. The problem is this: by accepting Conservative trade‑offs, Labour locks itself into an orthodoxy that it may later need to break. In a volatile world, Britain – outside the EU – must boost high-value exports and cut reliance on fragile supply chains. Even under Joe Biden, the UK was kept out of the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, which strengthened transatlantic industrial policy. Yet when does Downing Street admit Britain’s real limit is productive capacity – not budget deficits?Britain’s fiscal constraint is artificial, but its resource constraints are real. Energy, food and manufacturing are matters of national security, not just market functions. Without investment, dependence on key imports makes Britain vulnerable to supply-chain shocks and price inflation. That should make the announcements by Labour’s Ed Miliband and Steve Reed matter. If every pound spent requires a cut elsewhere, neither would have had much to say.Sir Keir often presents himself as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue – claiming to be adapting to circumstances rather than adhering to dogma. But such pragmatism is itself a belief system, one that treats capitalism’s rules as unchangeable, markets as beyond politics, and history as a one‑way street where past mistakes justify permanent, crippling caution. In doing so, he isn’t just rejecting alternatives – he’s rewriting history to suggest they were never an option to begin with.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 275 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer has the backing of Britons to stand up to Trumpism. At the White House, he should do so | Polly Toynbee

      by

      Day by day another vast hole opens up beneath what was once solid. The man who is on course to become Germany’s next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, once the most pro-US of leaders, has declared Nato in effect over. In his clear-eyed perception of Donald Trump’s first month, 80 years of shared transatlantic values have fallen into that crater. The US “doesn’t care about the fate of Europe one way or another” and Washington’s actions have been “no less drastic, dramatic, and ultimately no less brazen” than Moscow’s, he said. Now, Europe must defend itself.The moment smacks of that 1940 David Low cartoon of a British soldier standing on a rock in a stormy sea, shaking his fist as the Luftwaffe approach: “Very well, alone”. But this time we Europeans are alone. JD Vance, the US vice-president, declared war on European values and traditions; Europe’s liberal “enemies within” are more dangerous in his eyes than Russia or China. Those spell-breaking words told Europeans that the US can never be trusted again; at any time, Americans may vote for a leader who betrays old allies, sharing no affinity with Europe’s liberal democracies, international rights or laws. “The west” no longer exists as an entity bound by shared beliefs.Keir Starmer knows that every step he takes inside the White House on Thursday could set off some Trumpian explosive device. Emmanuel Macron will have already tested the ground (he arrived there today). The US president’s wild unpredictability, whether by design, delusion or distraction, is a weapon in itself, and a wary Starmer is war-gaming it with his advisers. That “bridge” of a “special relationship” remains in No 10’s official briefing lexicon, but by now it is wholly illusory.View image in fullscreenStarmer’s task is to salvage the best possible agreements on Ukraine, tariffs and defence without wavering on what once were mutual principles. He has his red lines, echoed across Europe: “No talks about Ukraine, without Ukraine”. No mafioso protection racket grabbing Ukraine’s mineral wealth to pay off bogus debts. Reuters reports that unless Volodymyr Zelenskyy pays half a trillion dollars, the US will cut off Ukraine’s access to Starlink, Elon Musk’s satellite communications network, crippling the country’s defences. In the face of such brutishness, Starmer is the right man: lawyerly, calm and diplomatic. He will not be riled into pointless verbal warfare. He brings Europe’s pledges to spend more, and possibly the hubristic offer of the UK’s new ambassador, Peter Mandelson, of a “new economic partnership” with the UK as a hub for US AI to “Make our economies great again”.But everyone can see that Trump’s “reset” with Vladimir Putin is irreconcilable with Nato. The alliance is dead if it fails to resist a Russian aggressor, a despot who murders opposition politicians, commits unspeakable war crimes, kidnaps thousands of Ukrainian children, with a declared intent to return Warsaw pact countries to its embrace. Trump is Russia’s greatest asset.Starmer will avoid verbal spats with a champion spitter. Be bold, comes the best advice from Merz, warning Europe’s leaders “not to come to Washington as a dwarf” or they “will be treated as one”. As Europe speedily circles the wagons, the UK finds its role will be vital, as Macron and Merz call for a joint nuclear shield to be provided by France and the UK, pivoting from US nuclear dependence. In a continent that is losing the security we relied on all our lives, trade disputes become a trivial quibble, Brexit an irrelevance. Merz is calling for Europe to come together in foreign, trade and security policy. Starmer ought to seize the chance, and abandon Labour’s fears of Brexiters.With its colossal majority, Labour has nothing to fear in rallying the country around joint European defence as a necessary patriotic cause, leaving the Tories and Reform confounded. The public that welcomed Ukrainians rejects Trump’s betrayal plans: 21% of people strongly support British soldiers being stationed in Ukraine as peacekeepers, and 37% of people “somewhat” support the idea. Only 21% are opposed to it. The idea of a European army would have been unthinkable during the Brexit referendum. Meanwhile, on trade, a majority of voters in every constituency thinks the government should prioritise trade with the EU over the US, even in Clacton, Nigel Farage’s seat.Fifty-five per cent of Britons now say it was wrong to leave the EU, while just 11% call Brexit a success. There’s no need to reopen those old wounds. A Europe united against new perils seems likely to loosen its rigid single market rules on trade, given that Britain would be contributing so much in mutual defence. As Britain strives to spend up to 3% compared with Germany’s 1.5% defence spending, the doors to trade must surely open for the UK to regain some of the 4-5% of GDP it has lost since Brexit.View image in fullscreenThe Brexiters now sound bizarrely out of tune. Last week, David Frost, who led the UK’s negotiations with the EU, frantically tweeted: “Labour are taking us back into the EU orbit by stealth and hoping you won’t notice till it’s too late. Don’t let them get away with it.” Yet those days are done. Instead, all of Europe and the UK need defence eurobonds for all to borrow. If the opposition attacks the chancellor for breaking a borrowing pledge, Labour need only point to the frightening new world where Elon Musk sends warm congratulations not to Germany’s new leader, but to the far-right AfD.There will be a White House press conference during Starmer’s visit, a dangerous opportunity for Trump to say unspeakable things while leaving Starmer dumbstruck. If he’s lost for words, he might remember those spoken by a particularly memorable British prime minister at a press conference with a US president in 2003. Hugh Grant, playing the prime minister in Love Actually, told the president, Billy Bob Thornton: “I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the president taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to Britain. We may be a small country, but we’re a great one, too … And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the president should be prepared for that.”The real world is not scripted by Richard Curtis for happy endings. Poking presidents in public is not politic, and Starmer is likely to offer Trump a carriage ride with King Charles. But he will have no trouble rousing voters to defend European and British values against Trumpism.

      Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      A Trump-Putin carve-up of Ukraine is indefensible | Letters

      by

      I look with horror and outrage not only at the patronising and hypocritical words of JD Vance in Munich (JD Vance stuns Munich conference with blistering attack on Europe’s leaders, 14 February) but also at the apparent attempt by Donald Trump to effect peace between Ukraine and Russia without including either Ukraine or Europe more generally (Trump says he has spoken to Putin and agreed to negotiate Ukraine ceasefire, 12 February).A peace that prevents any more bloodshed can only be a good thing, but it cannot be a carve-up in which Vladimir Putin achieves the victory that Ukrainians have so gallantly deprived him of on the battlefield. Or in which Ukraine is impoverished and emasculated by a greedy US and irredentist Russia.Moreover, if Europe and, by extension, the UK, are to be excluded from negotiations on the future of Ukraine and the continent, under no circumstances should British or other European troops be used in a peacekeeping role.The idea that Trump thinks he can cut a deal with Putin, rob Ukraine of her mineral wealth and then leave Europe to pick up the pieces is disgraceful beyond belief. We should not fall for it.It is unacceptable that British lives be risked for the knavery of Trump and his acolytes. If the US wants European troops on the ground, we get a place at the negotiating table. No ifs, no buts. No taxation without representation: is that not a founding principle of US democracy?William SeafordNewport If Donald Trump is determined to upend post-1945 international structures, as seems likely given his vice-president’s speech, then both sides of the Atlantic need to contemplate the full meaning of a transactional approach to security. Maybe British politicians will stop kidding themselves about the so-called special relationship, which has only ever been special to the Americans when it suited them. At the same time, perhaps someone can inform Trump that it is a mistake to evaluate defence alliances like real-estate deals.Should the president pay a visit to the UK, as Keir Starmer seems to hope, I suggest he be taken to visit the Iraq and Afghanistan memorial in Victoria Embankment Gardens, London, where he’ll be reminded of the 626 UK military personnel who died in furtherance of American wars in those countries between 2001 and 2014. Given the popular reverence for veterans in the US, the Maga movement might find our military sacrifice is one of the few aspects of the North Atlantic alliance it can’t easily dismiss.If Trump then still ditches Europe in favour of deals with Putin, it needs to be made clear that self-interest works on both sides. The US won’t be able to expect its former allies to fall in line behind it in the same way it has commanded since the end of the second world war.Mark CottleMaesygwartha, Monmouthshire As Simon Tisdall pointed out a year ago in the Observer, the UK cannot maintain its Trident nuclear deterrent without the active support of the United States. There now appears a high risk that the US will want to be able to veto the use of Trident by the UK and/or to extract a high price for any continued support. Isn’t it time to think about mothballing Trident and redirecting that funding to conventional defence capacity in Europe?Simon RewLondon More