In the Commons on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer was asked about rumours that America was about to suspend military aid to Ukraine. “I have not seen reports of the United States withdrawing support for Ukraine, and, as I understand it, that is not its position,” he replied.
It is astonishing that just a few days after his apparent diplomatic triumph in Washington, wooing the notoriously capricious American president, that he should have been blindsided about such a momentous decision.
Sir Keir was also asked whether the US could any longer be considered a “reliable ally”. He replied: “The US and the UK have the closest of relationships; our defence, security and intelligence are completely intertwined. No two countries are as close as our two countries and at a time like this, it would be a huge mistake to suggest that any weakening of that link is the way forward for security and defence in Europe.”
It may be dawning on the Prime Minister that the link is being weakened, or even severed, not here but on the other side of the Atlantic, whatever honeyed blandishments he received from Mr Trump during his talks.
The evidence is compelling.
Arguably, the most important event last week was not the humiliation of Volodomyr Zelensky in the White House but the vote in the UN on the third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine. America voted against a resolution condemning Russia, siding with North Korea and Belarus in doing so.
This might have been considered a signal of US intent, unless we are to believe everything Trump does is some sort of clever ruse designed to discombobulate his opponents. Instead of searching for some secondary meaning perhaps we should consider that what he says and does is what he believes.
Sir Keir is adamant that Trump remains committed to Nato and to the Article 5 “all for one and one for all” provision. Really? Would anyone trust the US under its current president to come to the aid of, say, Estonia if the Russians invaded? The words of Bismarck come to mind: that the Balkans are “not worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier”. Trump thinks the same about the Baltics AND a single US marine.
It is ironic, however, that the only time in its history that Nato has invoked Article 5 was on behalf of the United States after 9/11.
The geopolitics of the post-Cold War era are being turned upside down as, indeed, are all domestic assumptions. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Western democracies salivated at the prospect of spending the money previously allocated to defence and security on welfare, health and education.
History was over, the West had won, there were no real threats in Europe anymore. Russia was even admitted to the top table as a member of what became the G8. We could afford to hand out benefits never previously imagined. Parents would get free nursery care; pensioners free TV licences, triple locks and winter fuel allowances; welfare budgets ballooned with millions able to live a life of dependency on the state.
If a threat did reappear in Europe, Uncle Sam was always ready and willing to lend a hand and give the offender a good hiding. Nato was the vehicle and the Americans the principal driver.
That’s all gone now. The freeloading is over – as it should have been years ago. Now, from London to Warsaw the talk is all about spending more on defence. Sir Keir Starmer has raided the country’s foreign aid budget in order to push the military budget up to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 but this is nowhere near enough. Nor is a vague promise of moving to 3 per cent some time in the next decade.
It is not as though the money is not there. What is missing is the political will to prioritise defence over all the other spending programmes on which people have come to rely. Not only do we need to spend more on our own security but there is now a pressing need to fill the void left by US isolationism.
The case for seizing £250 billion of Russian assets frozen by sanctions is, therefore, stronger than ever. There has been talk of doing so almost from the moment the first Russian tank crossed the border in 2022 but no one is able to agree on what to do. It came up at the weekend’s summit in London, but again a common position could not be found. Germany is among the countries raising objections.
Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk has been pressing the EU to expropriate the assets of the Russian Central Bank, which are mostly held in Belgium. So far only the revenues from the interest have been used. At the weekend Rachel Reeves authorised a £2.26 billion UK-Ukraine bilateral loan agreement taken from the profits generated on sanctioned and frozen Russian sovereign assets.
Reeves said: “It’s Russia that has to pay for the damage and the devastation it’s caused in Ukraine.” In that case, why not confiscate the assets rather than use them for speculation?
Opponents say the money is Russia’s sovereign property protected by international law. But legal considerations did not stop Russia invading its neighbour or continuing to strafe its towns and cities almost daily with missiles and drones.
Even if there is a peace agreement, Russia should pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Why should Western taxpayers fund work to repair the damage caused by the aggressor when we have £250 billion of its money under our control?
Another argument against confiscation is that the Kremlin will retaliate. But if the Americans are really disengaging from Europe, it would be perverse to hand back huge amounts of money that Moscow could then spend on weapons to be used against us.
Asset confiscation will be on the agenda for the G7 meeting in Canada in June, but the way things are going will America even turn up? The hosts are preparing a plan for seizure but it is by no means clear that agreement can be reached.
In the Commons Sir Keir Starmer said it was “a very complex issue” and would not commit to supporting the idea. This dithering must end. Trump may consider Vladimir Putin to be a potential ally but he behaves like our enemy and should be made to pay.
In the Commons on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer was asked about rumours that America was about to suspend military aid to Ukraine. “I have not seen reports of the United States withdrawing support for Ukraine, and, as I understand it, that is not its position,” he replied.
It is astonishing that just a few days after his apparent diplomatic triumph in Washington, wooing the notoriously capricious American president, that he should have been blindsided about such a momentous decision.
Sir Keir was also asked whether the US could any longer be considered a “reliable ally”. He replied: “The US and the UK have the closest of relationships; our defence, security and intelligence are completely intertwined. No two countries are as close as our two countries and at a time like this, it would be a huge mistake to suggest that any weakening of that link is the way forward for security and defence in Europe.”
It may be dawning on the Prime Minister that the link is being weakened, or even severed, not here but on the other side of the Atlantic, whatever honeyed blandishments he received from Mr Trump during his talks.
The evidence is compelling.
Arguably, the most important event last week was not the humiliation of Volodomyr Zelensky in the White House but the vote in the UN on the third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine. America voted against a resolution condemning Russia, siding with North Korea and Belarus in doing so.
This might have been considered a signal of US intent, unless we are to believe everything Trump does is some sort of clever ruse designed to discombobulate his opponents. Instead of searching for some secondary meaning perhaps we should consider that what he says and does is what he believes.
Sir Keir is adamant that Trump remains committed to Nato and to the Article 5 “all for one and one for all” provision. Really? Would anyone trust the US under its current president to come to the aid of, say, Estonia if the Russians invaded? The words of Bismarck come to mind: that the Balkans are “not worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier”. Trump thinks the same about the Baltics AND a single US marine.
It is ironic, however, that the only time in its history that Nato has invoked Article 5 was on behalf of the United States after 9/11.
The geopolitics of the post-Cold War era are being turned upside down as, indeed, are all domestic assumptions. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Western democracies salivated at the prospect of spending the money previously allocated to defence and security on welfare, health and education.
History was over, the West had won, there were no real threats in Europe anymore. Russia was even admitted to the top table as a member of what became the G8. We could afford to hand out benefits never previously imagined. Parents would get free nursery care; pensioners free TV licences, triple locks and winter fuel allowances; welfare budgets ballooned with millions able to live a life of dependency on the state.
If a threat did reappear in Europe, Uncle Sam was always ready and willing to lend a hand and give the offender a good hiding. Nato was the vehicle and the Americans the principal driver.
That’s all gone now. The freeloading is over – as it should have been years ago. Now, from London to Warsaw the talk is all about spending more on defence. Sir Keir Starmer has raided the country’s foreign aid budget in order to push the military budget up to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 but this is nowhere near enough. Nor is a vague promise of moving to 3 per cent some time in the next decade.
It is not as though the money is not there. What is missing is the political will to prioritise defence over all the other spending programmes on which people have come to rely. Not only do we need to spend more on our own security but there is now a pressing need to fill the void left by US isolationism.
The case for seizing £250 billion of Russian assets frozen by sanctions is, therefore, stronger than ever. There has been talk of doing so almost from the moment the first Russian tank crossed the border in 2022 but no one is able to agree on what to do. It came up at the weekend’s summit in London, but again a common position could not be found. Germany is among the countries raising objections.
Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk has been pressing the EU to expropriate the assets of the Russian Central Bank, which are mostly held in Belgium. So far only the revenues from the interest have been used. At the weekend Rachel Reeves authorised a £2.26 billion UK-Ukraine bilateral loan agreement taken from the profits generated on sanctioned and frozen Russian sovereign assets.
Reeves said: “It’s Russia that has to pay for the damage and the devastation it’s caused in Ukraine.” In that case, why not confiscate the assets rather than use them for speculation?
Opponents say the money is Russia’s sovereign property protected by international law. But legal considerations did not stop Russia invading its neighbour or continuing to strafe its towns and cities almost daily with missiles and drones.
Even if there is a peace agreement, Russia should pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Why should Western taxpayers fund work to repair the damage caused by the aggressor when we have £250 billion of its money under our control?
Another argument against confiscation is that the Kremlin will retaliate. But if the Americans are really disengaging from Europe, it would be perverse to hand back huge amounts of money that Moscow could then spend on weapons to be used against us.
Asset confiscation will be on the agenda for the G7 meeting in Canada in June, but the way things are going will America even turn up? The hosts are preparing a plan for seizure but it is by no means clear that agreement can be reached.
In the Commons Sir Keir Starmer said it was “a very complex issue” and would not commit to supporting the idea. This dithering must end. Trump may consider Vladimir Putin to be a potential ally but he behaves like our enemy and should be made to pay.