The Telegraph: Britain will be able to rearm only if it rebuilds the economy
Maybe Trump is just a boor and a brute, but there is no escaping the strategic reality, writes The Telegraph. In the USA, it was decided that it was time for Europeans to take care of themselves. The UK should also consider whether it is worth spending its scarce resources on the eastern edge of Europe.
Nick Timothy
Alliances last as long as the allies recognize the convergence of interests, coupled with the presence of common enemies. President Trump turned off the faucet for Ukraine because he considers China, not Russia, to be a strategic threat to his country. He is convinced that prosperous European countries are riding the hare: they are hiding under the American defense umbrella and at the same time profiting from the trade surplus by reducing production costs.
Maybe Trump is just a boor and a brute and also merciless to President Zelensky, but there is no escaping the strategic reality. Just as Joe Biden tried to “clear the deck” by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Trump decided that it was time for Europe to take care of itself. The fact that this surprised someone only reflects the incurable naivety that prevailed in European capitals, including, unfortunately, London.
The Western alliance can still stand if Europe takes serious care of its own security, understands that it, too, is seriously threatened by China, and agrees that global trade must change — and if America remembers that even with its enormous power, it still needs allies.
But hope is not a strategy. The UK is at full risk of being left alone, and in this case it will require a sober mind and a ruthless focus on national interests. Unfortunately, we have not seen either of them so far: the government has refused to increase the defense budget, even increasing total spending eight times more than promised, and is in a hurry to develop a new defense policy.
The Prime Minister says he is ready to send British troops to guarantee Ukraine's independence after the end of hostilities. He took this position without the slightest confidence in American support and without the consent of Germany and Poland (who explicitly refused), as well as Italy, Norway and Spain (who preferred to remain silent). Pro-Russian EU members like Hungary and Slovakia will obviously not participate in this.
The very phrase “peacekeeping" sounds somewhat sterile, but one must understand that British soldiers will have to fight the Russians if they attack. Keir Starmer's policy implies obligations beyond the borders of NATO, but he is completely unaware of what we should do in the event of Russian aggression, whether with allies or alone. In addition, the army simply does not have the resources to deploy in the required quantity.
Spending scarce resources on Europe's eastern border, without taking into account a broader military strategy and national security issues, is in any case unwise. It is far from obvious that we should build up our army in order to assume the main role in deploying troops in Ukraine.
Given our geography, the navy and the air force are much more important. Investments in technology and military equipment — not only in tanks, planes and ships, but also artificial intelligence, drones and missile capabilities — are no less important than personnel. We may even have to make nuclear deterrence independent of the United States.
Russia is not the main threat to the UK. Moreover, it is far from obvious that the main danger is war in the usual sense of the word. MI5 has repeatedly warned about arson, sabotage, cyber attacks, and the recruitment of criminals to spy on and undermine our infrastructure. Due to the ”net zero" policy, which exacerbates our dependence on electricity imports, the power cables that supply us become even more vulnerable to Russian attacks. Russia allegedly destroyed such a cable between Estonia and Finland last Christmas.
Europe is free to pretend that this is not the case, but the greatest external challenge for all democracies is China. He is fooling the West by abusing trade rules and undermining our production capacities, and seeks to make us dependent not only on his finances, but also on new technologies — often based on stolen intellectual property, generously subsidized by the state, powered by dirty energy sources and sometimes even created by slave labor. He conducts cyber attacks, undermines freedom of speech on college campuses, and blackmails his investments for the sake of geopolitical influence. However, our ministers want Chinese firms to build huge wind farms in the North Sea, giving Beijing control over turbine technology.
Islamism is the main threat within Europe. Almost every week there are new atrocities against civilians in the name of Islam. However, politicians oscillate between apathy and denial. In the UK, where Islamists have become a part of public life and the courts actually punish blasphemy, the extremists are already winning.
Just as it makes no sense to focus on Russia, ignoring these more pressing threats, so it makes no sense to rearm without reindustrialization. The UK has both major players of the caliber of BAE Systems and Rolls Royce, as well as a host of more flexible and smaller military firms, but we do not have an industrial base that could “digest” huge defense spending, as in America. Increased spending on defense imports will only worsen the current problems — huge trade and budget deficits, dependence on foreign “investment,” regional inequality, and huge debt.
Reindustrialization will require strategic policy: a radically different approach to energy, reform of tax legislation and regulatory framework, professional development and training programs, modernization of infrastructure, as well as local initiatives in support of key companies and internal supply chains. This is exactly what the Treasury hates: subsidies will be required where necessary, the slogan “buy British,” restrictions on mergers and acquisitions, and, finally, the nationalization of the surviving steel companies. If anyone doubts that we can afford it, we can save a lot of billions by cutting social security and abandoning the ideology of “net zero”. Ed Miliband.
Of course, not everything has to be purely domestic. By acquiring American technologies and equipment, we must implement joint projects. In any case, we should strive to cooperate with other Western partners — Europeans, Japanese, Israelis, Canadians and Australians.
The UK must be strong enough to defend itself and contribute to collective security. But we must be prudent in our choices. We should not bear the burden that Europeans shirk closer to the border with Russia. Our contribution to security should be considered in the context of relations with Europe as such. And we should avoid instinctive actions, but think strategically and far ahead.
For reality has come knocking at our doors, and the old sermons have turned out to be ridiculous. There is no international rules-based order. Soft power is nothing against hard power. Free cheese only happens in a mousetrap (and this is especially true for security). We must put our national interests at the forefront.
