The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House to serve his second term as US President finds Sir Keir Starmer’s government singularly ill-equipped to maintain the UK’s status as Washington’s most important ally in Europe.
Military and intelligence cooperation have for decades been the key pillars that underpin the so-called Special Relationship between Washington and London.
But while Trump, whose mother was of Scottish descent, makes no secret of his profound Anglophilia, America’s 47th president is also a hard-headed businessman, one who, when it comes to defence, expects Washington’s allies to pay their fair share.
During Trump’s first term in office, the president regularly chastised his Nato allies for failing to meet the minimum two percent of GDP spending target on defence that membership of the alliance requires. His hectoring had the desired effect. When Trump left office only six countries – including the UK – met this requirement; today 23 countries in the 32-nation alliance meet the target, a testament to Trump’s powers of persuasion.
The dramatic changes to the global threat environment that have taken place since Trump was last in office, with conflicts raging in Ukraine and the Middle East, have prompted him to demand that Nato members now raise defence spending to around five per cent – a level not achieved even by the US, where spending on the world’s most powerful military currently stands at around 3.5 per cent.
Many Nato leaders believe Trump’s latest demand is simply a negotiating tactic. Even so, Trump’s likely insistence on making Nato expenditure a key issue during his second term will undoubtedly focus attention on the parlous state of the UK’s Armed Forces, which have been severely hollowed out as a result of more than a decade of drastic defence cuts.
Nor is there any sign that the Starmer government is any closer to fulfilling its pledge – made during last year’s general election – to raise spending to 2.5 percent by the end of this parliament, with reports at the weekend that the latest Strategic Defence Review, which was due to be published in March, has been pushed back to the autumn.
The military’s shortcomings could find themselves brutally exposed if Trump presses ahead with his plan to send a peacekeeping mission including British troops to Ukraine as part of a plan to end the conflict.
This would require the Army to field a force of between 5,000 to 10,000 troops, which would present a major challenge given that the Army has been reduced to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era.
Failure to respond adequately would undoubtedly strain relations between Washington and London, adding to the US leader’s belief that Nato allies such as the UK no longer pay sufficient attention to their defence needs.
Nor is Starmer’s ability to smooth relations with Washington likely to be enhanced by the imminent arrival of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s next ambassador to the US.
Mandelson has previously insulted Trump, describing him as a “danger to the world” and “little short of a white nationalist and racist”, with questions already being raised about whether Trump will actually confirm Mandelson’s appointment.
The fact that Starmer can think that appointing an arch Europhile like Mandelson will help to safeguard the UK’s interests with the new Trump administration, which has little regard for the European Union, suggests the Prime Minister still has a lot to learn about dealing with the new American President.
The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House to serve his second term as US President finds Sir Keir Starmer’s government singularly ill-equipped to maintain the UK’s status as Washington’s most important ally in Europe.
Military and intelligence cooperation have for decades been the key pillars that underpin the so-called Special Relationship between Washington and London.
But while Trump, whose mother was of Scottish descent, makes no secret of his profound Anglophilia, America’s 47th president is also a hard-headed businessman, one who, when it comes to defence, expects Washington’s allies to pay their fair share.
During Trump’s first term in office, the president regularly chastised his Nato allies for failing to meet the minimum two percent of GDP spending target on defence that membership of the alliance requires. His hectoring had the desired effect. When Trump left office only six countries – including the UK – met this requirement; today 23 countries in the 32-nation alliance meet the target, a testament to Trump’s powers of persuasion.
The dramatic changes to the global threat environment that have taken place since Trump was last in office, with conflicts raging in Ukraine and the Middle East, have prompted him to demand that Nato members now raise defence spending to around five per cent – a level not achieved even by the US, where spending on the world’s most powerful military currently stands at around 3.5 per cent.
Many Nato leaders believe Trump’s latest demand is simply a negotiating tactic. Even so, Trump’s likely insistence on making Nato expenditure a key issue during his second term will undoubtedly focus attention on the parlous state of the UK’s Armed Forces, which have been severely hollowed out as a result of more than a decade of drastic defence cuts.
Nor is there any sign that the Starmer government is any closer to fulfilling its pledge – made during last year’s general election – to raise spending to 2.5 percent by the end of this parliament, with reports at the weekend that the latest Strategic Defence Review, which was due to be published in March, has been pushed back to the autumn.
The military’s shortcomings could find themselves brutally exposed if Trump presses ahead with his plan to send a peacekeeping mission including British troops to Ukraine as part of a plan to end the conflict.
This would require the Army to field a force of between 5,000 to 10,000 troops, which would present a major challenge given that the Army has been reduced to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era.
Failure to respond adequately would undoubtedly strain relations between Washington and London, adding to the US leader’s belief that Nato allies such as the UK no longer pay sufficient attention to their defence needs.
Nor is Starmer’s ability to smooth relations with Washington likely to be enhanced by the imminent arrival of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s next ambassador to the US.
Mandelson has previously insulted Trump, describing him as a “danger to the world” and “little short of a white nationalist and racist”, with questions already being raised about whether Trump will actually confirm Mandelson’s appointment.
The fact that Starmer can think that appointing an arch Europhile like Mandelson will help to safeguard the UK’s interests with the new Trump administration, which has little regard for the European Union, suggests the Prime Minister still has a lot to learn about dealing with the new American President.