US president Donald Trump’s approach to negotiations with Russia has triggered outrage in Europe. Leaders in capitals across the continent feel sidelined as its fate is decided, and have reacted with anger to Mr Trump’s words towards Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Many, too, are evidently dissatisfied with the ground apparently ceded to Moscow in early talks on a possible peace deal. The question left unanswered, however, is their proposed alternative, and their ability to enforce it.
Sir Keir Starmer is reportedly set to present a proposal for European forces to enter Ukraine to police any ceasefire deal brokered by the United States, but wishes for this backstop against further Russian aggression to be supported in turn by US forces on standby in Eastern Europe.
Leaving aside for a moment questions over Britain’s ability to sustain a large-scale military deployment overseas, it is far from clear that Mr Trump would be willing to step in and fulfil this role, with US defence secretary Pete Hegseth insisting that the burden should fall upon European forces rather than American taxpayers.
Regardless of how Europeans may feel about Mr Trump and his words, they will need to confront both his policies, and the trends in US politics that have led to them. To assume, as they appear to have done in 2016, that Washington’s apparent unwillingness to maintain the full extent of its military posture in Europe is a mere temporary blip would be a great mistake. Relying on the goodwill of the American taxpayer for our security is no longer a viable approach.
The question, then, is whether Europe retains an appetite to do something about it. It is not helpful to offer vocal condemnation of Mr Trump unless that condemnation is matched by a viable alternative, and the necessary fiscal muscle to maintain it.
As former defence secretary Ben Wallace writes in these pages today, Britain needs to confront the reality of its hollowed-out capabilities, with the armoured division supposedly at the heart of our military capabilities in such a state that it is apparently doubtful whether we would be able to deploy even a third of it in a fully battle-ready condition.
If Sir Keir Starmer wishes Britain to show leadership in Europe, he will need to show leadership at home, making the painful adjustments necessary to fund fully capable Armed Forces.
US president Donald Trump’s approach to negotiations with Russia has triggered outrage in Europe. Leaders in capitals across the continent feel sidelined as its fate is decided, and have reacted with anger to Mr Trump’s words towards Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Many, too, are evidently dissatisfied with the ground apparently ceded to Moscow in early talks on a possible peace deal. The question left unanswered, however, is their proposed alternative, and their ability to enforce it.
Sir Keir Starmer is reportedly set to present a proposal for European forces to enter Ukraine to police any ceasefire deal brokered by the United States, but wishes for this backstop against further Russian aggression to be supported in turn by US forces on standby in Eastern Europe.
Leaving aside for a moment questions over Britain’s ability to sustain a large-scale military deployment overseas, it is far from clear that Mr Trump would be willing to step in and fulfil this role, with US defence secretary Pete Hegseth insisting that the burden should fall upon European forces rather than American taxpayers.
Regardless of how Europeans may feel about Mr Trump and his words, they will need to confront both his policies, and the trends in US politics that have led to them. To assume, as they appear to have done in 2016, that Washington’s apparent unwillingness to maintain the full extent of its military posture in Europe is a mere temporary blip would be a great mistake. Relying on the goodwill of the American taxpayer for our security is no longer a viable approach.
The question, then, is whether Europe retains an appetite to do something about it. It is not helpful to offer vocal condemnation of Mr Trump unless that condemnation is matched by a viable alternative, and the necessary fiscal muscle to maintain it.
As former defence secretary Ben Wallace writes in these pages today, Britain needs to confront the reality of its hollowed-out capabilities, with the armoured division supposedly at the heart of our military capabilities in such a state that it is apparently doubtful whether we would be able to deploy even a third of it in a fully battle-ready condition.
If Sir Keir Starmer wishes Britain to show leadership in Europe, he will need to show leadership at home, making the painful adjustments necessary to fund fully capable Armed Forces.