Even without the two key protagonists being present at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, the body language and the rhetoric in the hall spoke volumes about the yawning chasms between the principal participants.
The opening positions in any future negotiations between Russia and Ukraine remain completely unreconcilable, the US is pulling away from underwriting the security of Europe, European states are divided over their support for Ukraine, and despite their 90-minute phone conversation, Presidents Trump and Putin have little common ground beyond maintaining their own reputations amongst their domestic audiences.
Furthermore, for all the fine words in support of Ukraine and Nato by Foreign Secretary Lammy – including his “irreversible pathway for Ukraine into Nato” – unless there is a Damascene conversion by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves on funding, a tangible boost to our defence capability looks as unlikely as a unilateral withdrawal of Russian forces from the Donbas and Crimea.
This is all before one considers any wider responsibility that the UK Government may feel towards the peace process in Gaza or supporting the US in the Indo-Pacific – or Sir Keir Starmer’s unresolved embarrassment over the Chagos Islands and the US base on Diego Garcia.
The figure that I feel most for in all this – with the exception of President Zelensky – is Lord Robertson. For the second time in his illustrious career, he has the opportunity to scrutinise the security threats to this country and propose solutions.
Between his Strategic Defence Review (SDR) of 1997-98 for the Blair government and this second for Keir Starmer, he has had five years as the secretary general of Nato and therefore understands the wider defence and security dynamics on both sides of the Atlantic better than almost anyone. But his is a truly daunting task.
Even without the two key protagonists being present at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, the body language and the rhetoric in the hall spoke volumes about the yawning chasms between the principal participants.
The opening positions in any future negotiations between Russia and Ukraine remain completely unreconcilable, the US is pulling away from underwriting the security of Europe, European states are divided over their support for Ukraine, and despite their 90-minute phone conversation, Presidents Trump and Putin have little common ground beyond maintaining their own reputations amongst their domestic audiences.
Furthermore, for all the fine words in support of Ukraine and Nato by Foreign Secretary Lammy – including his “irreversible pathway for Ukraine into Nato” – unless there is a Damascene conversion by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves on funding, a tangible boost to our defence capability looks as unlikely as a unilateral withdrawal of Russian forces from the Donbas and Crimea.
This is all before one considers any wider responsibility that the UK Government may feel towards the peace process in Gaza or supporting the US in the Indo-Pacific – or Sir Keir Starmer’s unresolved embarrassment over the Chagos Islands and the US base on Diego Garcia.
The figure that I feel most for in all this – with the exception of President Zelensky – is Lord Robertson. For the second time in his illustrious career, he has the opportunity to scrutinise the security threats to this country and propose solutions.
Between his Strategic Defence Review (SDR) of 1997-98 for the Blair government and this second for Keir Starmer, he has had five years as the secretary general of Nato and therefore understands the wider defence and security dynamics on both sides of the Atlantic better than almost anyone. But his is a truly daunting task.