Tag Archives: Emmanuel Macron

Britain, Defence, Europe, European Union, France, Government, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Europe can deal with America’s perfidy

A NEW WORLD ORDER

Intro: Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world

A WATERSHED moment is upon us as Britain and the entire European continent faces a turning point, a second Zeitenwende, and a new world order. Whichever turn of phrase best describes the dramatic shifts unfolding since Donald Trump began his second US presidential term in January, one thing is certain: nothing will be the same again. The key question now is what, in practical terms, Europe can and will do to meet this challenge. Is this paradigm shift in the world order Europe’s moment, when it finally comes of age as a global player? Or will the EU and its close neighbours collectively fail to rise to the occasion, condemning their citizens to an era of domination by bigger and more determined rapacious powers?

With incautious recklessness, Donald Trump is in the process of attempting to do three extraordinary things. First, he is trying to force Ukraine, which has spent more than three years under murderous assault, to accept a “peace deal” on inimical terms dictated by himself and the aggressor, Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Second, in a stunning reversal of US policy, he is seeking a rapprochement with Moscow that includes re-establishing full political and diplomatic relations, lifting sanctions and launching joint economic partnerships. Third, he is telling Europeans they must henceforth defend themselves; that the US, in effect, is no longer a loyal, reliable partner or even necessarily a friend, and that NATO, for 76 years the solid bedrock of transatlantic security, is dispensable.

European leaders are broadly united in their alarm at all three of these unwise, irrational, and dangerous interventions. At the same time, most accept that even if Trump didn’t hold office, a change in the balance of US-Europe relations is inescapable and more than overdue. In a national address, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, summed up the position well: “Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow,” he said. “The war in Ukraine… continues with the same intensity [but] the US, our ally, has changed its position.” As a result, Europe was entering a new era of self-reliance.

Mr Macron, like many others, was accused of appeasing Putin in 2022. He has learned better since. He warns now that Russian imperialist aggression “knows no borders”, directly threatening France and Europe. This is not just talk. He has shown imaginative leadership, producing a tentative plan for a staged ceasefire that has Ukrainian support, lobbying, flattering, and even correcting Trump to his face in the Oval Office. The French president has also been promoting an Anglo-French proposal to deploy a European “assurance force” in Ukraine composed of a so-called coalition of the willing.

There has been repeated recourse in recent days for Europe to “step up” as a matter of urgency. Germany surprised many with a positive leap into the future. A country that nurtures visceral horror of debt announced a spectacular U-turn of its own – the amending of its Basic Law to permit multibillion-euro investments in defence and national infrastructure. Quite remarkable given that Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democrat who held off the far-right to win last month’s federal election, has a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Not any more. And he has gone further even than Macron in urging Europe’s “independence” from the US and pledging ongoing, expanded military aid for Kyiv. Other European leaders, notably Donald Tusk, have “stepped up” in commendable ways, too. Poland’s prime minister is in an unenviable position. A strong adherent in the transatlantic alliance, he, like so many others, now must feel utterly betrayed by Trump. There is a real sense of perfidy in the air. NATO is a crucial shield for Poland, as it is for the three neighbouring Baltic republics.

Keir Starmer also recognises the historic nature of this moment, and has risen to meet it. He has worked assiduously and with due care to restrain Trump’s worst instincts. His evident contempt, displayed in the House of Commons, for the ignorant comments of US vice-president JD Vance about “random countries” showed he is not afraid to push back. The PM’s collaboration with EU leaders is a very welcome post-Brexit development that should be extended beyond defence and security. Yet like them, the UK faces daunting hurdles.

These challenges – on reducing Europe’s reliance on America, boosting its defences, and maintaining support for Ukraine – were the focus of the emergency EU summit. As is often the case in Brussels, the results were mixed. New overall defence spending of £670bn was agreed. But whether it ever materialises will depend on national governments’ willingness to borrow. The usual divisions were apparent – such as Hungary blocking a joint statement on Ukraine. Within NATO, most member states, like Britain, are now committing to higher spending. Non-EU countries, such as Norway, are also piling in. Oslo is belatedly, yet commendably, doubling its aid to Kyiv.

Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world. But how effective Europe can be in rescuing Ukraine in the short term from a developing Trump-Putin axis is in serious doubt. Trump still refuses to provide Kyiv with meaningful post-war security guarantees. His suspension of military aid, mapping, and intelligence assistance is encouraging Russia to intensify attacks. More civilians are dying each day because of Trump’s treachery. With each passing day, Ukraine is further brutalised and degraded. A just peace looks further away than ever. 

Standard
Britain, Finance, Syria, United Nations, United States

Military intervention in Syria following the Douma attack was proportionate

SYRIA

IT has now been fifteen years since the Iraq War. That conflict has cast a long shadow over British foreign policy. The blowback against former prime minister Tony Blair and those who supported his decision to commit British forces to that conflict was unprecedented. It has created in the current generation of political leaders an extreme caution when it comes to matters of military intervention.

No one doubts that the deployment of an armed response must always be the last resort. But when the caution of politicians means a rejection to step in when it is both appropriate and necessary, we are on very shaky moral ground.

The decision by the British Government along with our international allies France and the United States of direct strikes against Syrian chemical production sites is a clear point in case. The use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 40 people in the town of Douma could not go unchallenged. The West has responded with proportionate force that leaves both Syria and its proxy Russia in no doubt as to what will happen if the ‘red lines’ of chemical weapons are breached or proliferated.

Unfortunately, though, a difficult tone was set by President Trump as he took to Twitter in a typically hot-headed intervention last Wednesday when he promised deployment of ‘smart bombs’ prior to the strikes on Syrian targets. War should not be trivialised using social media, more so even by the president of the United States.

French president Emmanuel Macron, who has previously said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would also represent a “red line”, declared that he had proof the regime of Bashar al-Assad was behind the attack on Douma. Mr Macron remained cautious in the run up to the attacks but should be applauded for the courage he took in committing French warplanes to the cause.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has persistently asked for a full intelligence briefing on the situation in Syria. He also wanted any decision on military intervention to be put to a parliamentary vote.

Naturally, many who favour Britain’s involvement in strikes against the Assad regime will be deeply sceptical about Mr Corbyn’s intentions. He was, after all, once chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, which condemns military action by western governments.

This lack of trust is at the heart of politicians’ inability to move on from the Iraq War when discussing possible deployment of British troops. A common characteristic of those who felt strongly either way about the 2003 intervention is the belief that those with whom they disagree are acting in bad faith.

It is clearly time for our national debate to get past Iraq and for politicians to honestly assess the merits of action based on humanitarian need rather than political risk.

. See also Britain must now act against Syria’s regime

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, France, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, Ukraine

UK blames Russia for ‘huge cyber-attack’

SECURITY

War of words: The Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson

BRITAIN has publicly blamed the Russian government for a “reckless and destructive” cyber-attack.

In an extraordinary move likely to spark a diplomatic storm, the Foreign Office accused the Kremlin of “malicious cyber activity”.

The attack, which occurred last year, targeted Ukraine and spread across Europe. Its primary targets were the Ukrainian financial, energy and government sectors.

But it was designed to spread further and affected other European and Russian firms in June.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Vladimir Putin of “ripping up the rule book”.

Mr Williamson said: “We have entered a new era of warfare, witnessing a destructive and deadly mix of conventional military might and malicious cyber-attacks.

“Russia is ripping up the rule book by undermining democracy, wrecking livelihoods by targeting critical infrastructure, and weaponising information. We must be primed and ready to tackle these stark and intensifying threats.” Ukraine has been locked in a simmering conflict with Russia-backed separatists since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.

Foreign minister for cyber-security Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said the UK’s decision to identify the Kremlin as responsible for the attack underlines the fact the Government will not tolerate “malicious cyber-activity”.

He said: “The UK Government judges that the Russian government, specifically the Russian military, was responsible for the destructive Not-Petya cyber-attack of June 2017.

“The attack showed a continued disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. Its reckless release disrupted organisations across Europe costing hundreds of millions of pounds.”

He added: “The Kremlin has positioned Russia in direct opposition to the West, yet it doesn’t have to be that way. We call on Russia to be the responsible member of the international community it claims to be rather than secretly trying to undermine it.

“The United Kingdom is identifying, pursuing and responding to malicious cyber-activity regardless of where it originates, imposing costs on those who would seek to do us harm.

“We are committed to strengthening, co-ordinated international efforts to uphold a free, open, peaceful and secure cyberspace.”

His comments point to UK intelligence agencies discovering evidence indicating the involvement of the Russian military.

Meanwhile, the Defence Secretary has risked igniting a diplomatic firestorm by claiming there is no point in Britain listening to Emmanuel Macron.

Mr Williamson has taken aim at the French president amid growing concerns in London at his hard-line position on Brexit.

He spoke out after Mr Macron threatened to launch strikes on the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians. Mr Williamson, who has been tipped as a potential future Prime Minister, said the UK felt no need to “copy” decisions in neighbouring countries.

“What is the point in listening to French politicians,” he said. “We have our own foreign policy, we don’t need to copy.”

He said he would “dutifully study” Mr Macron’s comments but refused to be drawn on a change in the UK’s policy.

The UK refused to join retaliatory strikes launched by Donald Trump in Syria last year over suspected chemical weapons use. Former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon later said Britain would support similar actions if “legal, proportionate and necessary”.

Mr Williamson’s dismissal of Mr Macron, during a ministerial meeting at NATO’s Brussels headquarters, will stoke fears that ties between Paris and London are under increasing strain.

Mr Macron threatened a major escalation in Syria this week by threatening to launch air strikes against president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The warning followed claims that Syrian government forces dropped a chlorine bomb from a helicopter on Saraqeb, a rebel-held town, earlier this month.

The Syrian Government has denied the accusations, while Mr Macron said that French officials had yet to find enough evidence to launch a strike.

Standard