The Telegraph: Trump may withdraw from NATO in a couple of years
Of the weapons listed on Britain's balance sheet, only a small part is serviceable, complains the former defense minister in an article for The Telegraph. Attempts to increase defense spending result in outright fraud. What NATO will do after the US withdrawal is a big question.
Ben Wallace
The Treasury Department has once again used its old trick — to carry out related expenses for the Department of “defense”.
There will certainly come a time in the next few years when the United States will really think about withdrawing from NATO in earnest. And if that happens, we won't be surprised. It's not like we weren't warned. If there's one thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama have ever agreed on, it's that Europe must make a bigger contribution to NATO.
At the 2014 Cardiff summit, the Treasury fiercely resisted these demands. All possible tricks and equivocation were used to pull the desired 2% of GDP from the UK by hook or by crook. The Americans, in their peculiar manner, only politely asked. And they continue to ask to this day. But, commanding allied forces in NATO, they are well aware of the true state of forces of each of the allies.
The topic was protected from public attention by the labels “top secret” and other “operational considerations,” however, the Supreme Commander of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe (the military boss of NATO, and, characteristically, invariably an American) became more and more tense the more aggressive Russia became.
However, European capitals, including London, have been steadily cutting costs as if nothing had happened. This pernicious trend was reversed only in 2019 under Boris Johnson, when the Ministry of Defense offered real money and real reforms. Previous governments, both Conservative and Labor, only rolled out the Red Arrows aerobatic team and staged a ceremonial banner removal to impress upon the respectable public that everything was fine.
But Ukraine called our bluff. NATO and the international community had to act: after examining our reserves, the ministers realized how weak we were.
I remember when we discussed the transfer of 155 mm long-range AS90 artillery to Ukraine, I was informed that we formally have 73 guns on the balance sheet, but only 19 of them are in good working order! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to the Challenger 3 standard, I was informed that this was impossible: the rest were “stripped” so that the active ones remained in service.
You will, of course, object that I should have learned all these details on my first day in office. But you'd be surprised how cleverly the military hides bad news when they want to.
Last week we witnessed the first defence review from Labour in more than 20 years. It was preceded by repeated announcements of purchases announced by the conservatives. The review itself came out frankly weak: it is clearly budget-oriented, not threat-oriented. Major decisions were made in advance, and without 3% on defense by 2030, the document was stillborn from the very beginning.
Moreover, its authors insulted the valiant men and women in our armed forces and actually gave the middle finger to the White House.
Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Instead of making tough decisions about priorities, Rachel Reeves has remembered a long-standing treasury trick and is rubbing us all in. The government has included in the column “defense” not only the costs of intelligence and Ukraine, but even funds from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a result, basic defense spending will not even reach 2.5%, as promised — not even close. There is no way to reach 3% either. This is an outright scam from start to finish.
If John Healey had spent as much time and effort butting heads with the Treasury as he did repeating my government's long-standing plans or blowing dust in the public's eyes, he might still have gotten his way. But it is obvious that the successes of the Labor Party are in the first place for him, and the defense of Great Britain is only in the second.
How dare their Government shirk its sacred duty to protect our shores and properly equip our armed forces? At one time, it was none other than the Labor Party that sent our troops to war in lightly armored jeeps — and now they are destined to repeat this betrayal.
Next week, Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the NATO summit. There, he will voice a call to spend 3.5% of GDP on real defense — not without taking into account intelligence officers or diplomats. And you can't fool anyone but Donald on treasury chaff!
I was in Washington last week, and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon are sincerely convinced that Trump can withdraw from NATO in just a couple of years. They are not in the mood to joke.
Therefore, we need to either prove that we are contributing properly, or somehow make up for the loss of 70% of NATO's military potential after the US withdrawal. And judging by Rachel Reeves' “successes,” we won't do either. History may remember the current situation as the moment when Britain abandoned its place in NATO and led the alliance to collapse.
And all the while, Putin and Xi will lick their lips, bide their time, and sharpen their teeth on little Estonia or Finland. The best thing Donald Trump can do next week is to declare that NATO is a closed club with a property qualification. If there is no money, it means that you are turned away.
