Category Archives: Society

Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

A defining moment for the future of Europe

EUROPEAN SECURITY

EIGHTY years ago, Franklin D Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill met in the Crimean city of Yalta to determine the future shape of Europe.

Together the United States, Soviet Union, and Britain had defeated Nazism. The symposium was intended to deliver lasting peace and security on the continent.

There were echoes of that momentous occasion this week when representatives of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin gathered in Saudi Arabia to thrash out an agreement over the future of Ukraine.

Significantly, Ukraine itself is excluded from the talks, leading to suspicions of an impending sell-out.

For Putin it’s a diplomatic coup. A pariah just a few weeks ago, the swaggering and revanchist bully is back at the global top table.

For President Trump it’s a signal that America will no longer bankroll Europe’s security without getting something in return.

He has made it clear he wants an end to this war and that if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky blocks his plan for peace, military aid may be withdrawn.

In addition, he says the aid already provided by the US should be repaid by Ukraine handing over oil, gas, mineral rights, and infrastructure that totals around £400billion.

Mr Zelensky had himself raised the idea of giving America a direct stake in Ukraine’s lucrative mineral industry in the hope it would deter Putin from attacking in a similar vein again.              

But what Mr Trump is asking for is more than the reparations demanded of Germany after the First World War. Battle-ravaged Ukraine simply couldn’t pay.

This is a defining moment for the future of Europe and NATO. If Mr Zelensky rejects a Trump/Putin deal, European nations must decide whether to keep backing the war effort without US support. The situation is becoming more precarious and volatile by the day.

They have only themselves to blame for this dilemma. For decades they have spent far too little on defence, expecting the US to ride to the rescue in times of trouble.

President Trump is demanding, not unreasonably, that from now on they bear more of their own security burden.

Sir Keir Starmer has been talking tough in recent days, saying Britian is ready to put “boots on the ground” to guarantee any peace deal. Such an announcement has not gone down well with Moscow or with some of our NATO allies including Germany who are furious that such a suggestion has been made when a peace deal hasn’t yet been brokered. Nevertheless, is the UK actually capable of doing so, given the depleted state of our armed services after years of draconian cuts?

The incumbent government in Britain still hasn’t made good its pledge to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. This is the minimum required. Most military experts say it should be at least 3 per cent.

There’s no denying that money is tight, especially after the Labour Government’s disastrous budget increased the tax burden on families and businesses by £40billion. Imposing even higher taxes would send Britain into a deep depression.

Borrowing to boost defence would increase already stratospheric debt repayments, so the only sensible option is to cut the bloated, unproductive state. For the sake of national and European security Keir Starmer has no other option. Many in the public sector are likely to be offended when the axe starts to swing.

If Yalta taught the world anything, it’s that Russia can’t be trusted. Within weeks of that conference it had reneged on all its commitments to allow the occupied nations self-determination and the Iron Curtain came crashing down.

In the words of Roosevelt’s ambassador to Moscow, Stalin’s aim was “the establishment of totalitarianism, ending personal liberty, and democracy as we know it”.

Putin’s ambitions are not dissimilar. If he is allowed any sort of victory in Ukraine, it will not be long before he moves on to menace another European democracy.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Trump’s peace deal. At what cost?

EUROPEAN SECURITY

CONFUSED, contradictory, and deeply concerning. That is the verdict passed at the Munich Security Conference on Donald Trump’s hectic first month in the White House. The alarm in the air is unmistakably fraught.  

That’s chiefly attributed to the Trump administration being in the driving seat with the Europeans not even on the bus. Though his destination is unclear to many of us, what we do know is the US President wants a Nobel Peace Prize and believes a deal with Vladimir Putin will deliver it – no matter the cost to Ukraine, Europe, and Britain.

Trump assertively believes in a might-is-right world where the strong do what they can and the weak accept what they must. Forget high-minded appeals to past sacrifice and shared values; flattery and greed are the currencies that count now.

Ukraine’s mineral riches will sate that thirst. Lindsey Graham, the US Senator who represents the old-style Atlanticist wing of the Republican Party, has told the President that Ukraine is valuable real estate and that Russia must not be allowed to develop it.

So, it is mystifying that Mr Trump, the supposedly hard-nosed author of The Art Of The Deal, has given Putin major concessions before the talks have even started.

Will he allow Putin to dominate Europe in return for Moscow severing its alliance with Beijing? He’s capable of pushing such a horribly mistaken policy that could be disastrous for our security.

The good news is that the Conference’s dreadful proclamation – inviting Russia back into the G7, promising friendly summits with Putin, and excluding Ukraine from NATO membership – may be dumped tomorrow.

The US President changes his mind with impunity. His desire, according to reports, is to lead the news every hour of every day. Consistency and predictability can be disregarded, attention is what matters.  

The bad news is that his bullying streak is consistent. European leaders are playing with fire when they rebuke him publicly. It will be all too easy for Trump to withdraw the vital 8,000 US troops who protect NATO’s eastern frontier.

He can cancel the intelligence-sharing with Ukraine that provides its hard-pressed troops with their electronic eyes and ears.

A broken, defeated Ukraine will be a catastrophe for Europe, with millions of refugees fleeing west.

It will embolden Putin to find his next victim – perhaps Estonia, where Britain has scraped together 1,000 troops as part of a NATO tripwire force. But without Americans, that tripwire rings no bells.

Yes, European countries are belatedly boosting defence spending. But it will take many years before they can fill the gap the Americans would leave. They cannot even provide a credible force to protect Ukraine after a ceasefire deal. When it comes to European security, the Americans are the only game in town.

All this leaves Britain in a dreadful position. We cannot join the Europeans in denouncing Trump’s selfish, cynical approach. Our intelligence and nuclear relationship with the US are central to our own defence. We know they can be a difficult ally, but the alternative is worse.

Yet we do not want to see Europe isolated, failing, and splintering. Nor do we wish to see it falling prey to Russian – and Chinese – influence. That would be a catastrophe for our own security.

We should also be vexed about a European superstate taking shape without our participation. President Zelensky has called for a European army and increasing fear of Putin is driving continental leaders to take collective security seriously as never before.

The bleak and hard truth is that Britain’s hollowed-out Armed Forces, stagnant economy, and lightweight political leadership risk leaving us marginalised and on the sidelines. And for that we have only ourselves to blame.

Standard
Britain, Government, Middle East, Politics, Society, Syria

A moment of danger as well as opportunity

SYRIA

ON paper, the fall of a brutal tyrant, especially one who tortured and gassed his own people, should be a cause for unqualified celebration in the free world.

In practice, we know from bitter experience that when such despots are deposed, fresh chaos and tyranny all too often follow in the immediate aftermath. Elation over the horror of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi quickly turned to intense fear as Iraq and Libya were consumed by anarchy and civil war.

So, following the abrupt fall of Bashar al-Assad, the world is asking with some trepidation: What comes next for Syria, the wider Middle East, and the West?

Not for the first time in this volatile and unpredictable region, Western intelligence agencies were blindsided by the speed and intensity of the Islamist rebel offensive.

After capturing Damascus, and forcing Assad into exile, the insurgents declared total victory. Most prominent among the militias is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Its leaders may be preaching moderation right now, but they have their roots in ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Extremism and vengeance lurk behind the façade.

The various rebel factions have little in common except their hatred of Assad. Will they manage to unite to form a government – or plunge into a bloody power struggle?

The collapse of the regime is unquestionably a humiliation and a major strategic blow for Iran and Russia, its staunchest allies. Iran, because it uses Syria in funnelling weapons to its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon; Russia, because it has military bases in Syria that it will wish to protect.

The British PM welcomed the toppling of Assad’s “barbaric regime” and called for peace and stability, but with radical Islamists now in charge he risks looking naïve. Events in Syria represent a profound challenge to the West.

Undoubtedly, the renewed violence and instability in Syria will almost certainly trigger fresh waves of refugees heading for Europe and the UK. Strong political leadership and coordination in the West is now an imperative.

One of the many unanswered questions is what will happen now to the 50,000 former ISIS militants currently held by Kurdish forces in north-east Syria.

If these brutal jihadis are released or fight their way out of the camps, the repercussions could be deadly in Europe as well as the Middle East.

And the warning given by ex-MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger of a “serious spike” in the threat posed this country by foreign and home-grown extremists that could be inspired by a resurgence of Islamic State is deeply alarming. We know from atrocities committed here in the past just how murderous and hard to predict these fanatics can be.

The current UK terror threat is at level 3 – “substantial” – but may well be elevated in the light of unfolding events. Extra-vigilance will now be needed by our security services, police, and the Border Force.

The world also awaits to see what kind of regime the rebels will create in Assad’s place. Whatever Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is saying publicly, the West must remember that it as an offshoot of al-Qaeda, and so its leaders are unlikely to be fans of Western democracy.

The UK has announced £11 million in foreign aid for Syria. We must be very careful where that money goes. As Foreign Secretary David Lammy rightly reminded the House of Commons, HTS remains a proscribed terrorist organisation.

Jubilation over the fall of a dictator should not blind us to the risks of what comes next. As Mr Lammy said: “This is a moment of danger as well as opportunity.”

Standard