In the years to come, we will undoubtedly wonder how it was possible that defense played no role in the 2024 parliamentary elections.
There was a brief spat when the Conservatives boasted they would increase defence spending from the current level of 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP “by 2030”, while Labour said they would reach 2.5 per cent “when circumstances permit”.
The latter is a meaningless statement, but the Conservatives’ claim is hardly a sign of determination.
And it is remarkable that the chances of Donald Trump being (re)elected president, after the horrific public revelation of Joe Biden’s inability during their so-called debate last week, have still not resulted in the issue of defense being brought to the fore in our own elections. has been discussed.
Two weeks ago I attended a luncheon held by leading Westminster think tank Policy Exchange for the man many are tipping to become National Security Advisor in Trump 2.0: Elbridge Colby, pictured
Colby, like Trump, sees China as the only serious threat to US interests and believes that all of Washington’s military strategies must be directed against Xi Jinping’s plans for “Asian hegemony”: Beijing taking control of the archipelago that runs from Japan, through Taiwan, to the southern edge of the South China Sea.
Resign
It could hardly be clearer that Donald Trump, returning to the White House, will not only demand that we and other European countries pay much, much more of the cost of defending against the depredations of the insatiable warmonger in the Kremlin: he has actually no intention of helping us.
Last month it was revealed that Trump had told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: ‘We will leave, we will leave NATO. And by the way, you owe me $400 billion because you, you Germans, did not pay what you were supposed to pay for defense.’
It is said that this was some kind of bluff; Trump’s negotiating tactic to get the Europeans to cough up more.
Not according to John Bolton, who was his National Security Advisor: ‘I was there when he almost withdrew [from Nato]and he doesn’t negotiate. His goal here is not to strengthen NATO, but to lay the foundation for getting out.
Two weeks ago I attended a luncheon hosted by the leading think tank Policy Exchange in Westminster for the man seen by many as the National Security Advisor for Trump 2.0: Elbridge Colby.
The extraordinarily articulate Colby, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense during the first Trump administration, shocked the British military crowd with his stark comment that he did not necessarily see a Russian attack on a European NATO member as a reason for the US to deploy troops.
He was unmoved when one of the guests pointed out that when the US sought support for its invasion of Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden lurked) after September 11, all their NATO allies also sent troops in support.
Colby, like Trump, sees China as the only serious threat to American interests, and believes that Washington’s entire military strategy should be directed against Xi Jinping’s plans for “Asian hegemony”: Beijing taking control of the archipelago of islands running from Japan, via Taiwan, to the southern edge of the South China Sea.
Colby told us that Europe should be given less priority. He mocked what he called “the idea that we should put our spear in Europe because that is much less important to the American people.”
When I spoke to him afterwards, Colby said, “You have to realize that I’m a moderate on this, compared to many in the Republican Party.”
He added: ‘Your prime minister says he will spend 2.5% of UK GDP on defence. Why not 3.5%? That’s what America spends.’
Fair point. Half a century ago, before there was war in Europe, 5 percent of our GDP was spent on defense.
Provoked
Ukraine is now the front line. That has certainly been the subject of debate in the election, after Donald Trump’s buddy Nigel Farage claimed in a BBC interview that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was the result of Putin being “provoked by NATO expansion.”
Before the Kremlin tanks rolled toward Kiev in 2022, NATO’s borders had not moved an inch since Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joined the bloc in 2004.
And Putin had repeatedly stated that their accession posed no threat to Russian national security. They will not feel so safe now.
If Sir Keir Starmer becomes prime minister on Friday, he will fly to Washington four days later for a NATO summit marking the 75th anniversary of its founding.
Above it all, the advancing shadow of Donald Trump will loom – and Europe will be told that when it comes to Russia, you have to deal with it yourself.
If that happens, the question that has not been raised once in this election is: how does Labour intend to pay for a generational increase in defence spending?
Starmer fought Corbyn: to stop Brexit
Sir Keir Starmer has never given a clear answer to the question ‘Why did you say Jeremy Corbyn would be “a great Prime Minister”?’ He has also struggled to explain why he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet while the likes of Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper declined.
But Starmer tried again last week. He told an interviewer that he “did well to fight from the shadow cabinet” and cited “his commitment to NATO” as an example.
Actually, NATO membership was never a problem. But Brexit was. And in this regard, Starmer certainly fought Corbyn: the then Labor leader was firmly against the idea of a second referendum.
Sir Keir Starmer has never given a clear answer to the question ‘Why did you say Jeremy Corbyn would be a “great Prime Minister”?’ He has also struggled to explain why he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet while the likes of Rachel Reeves and Yvette Cooper refused
However, Starmer knew that party members (unlike millions of Labour voters) were fiercely opposed to Brexit and wanted the country to vote again on the issue.
That is why Starmer called for a second referendum at the 2018 party conference in Liverpool, without warning the party leadership. He added: ‘And no one is ruling out Remain as an option.’
The delighted members rose to their feet to cheer, but immediately the Conservatives took to social media to say: ‘Confirmed: Labour will not respect the referendum result’. Corbyn’s political secretary Amy Jackson waved a copy of this in Sir Keir’s face, according to Tom Baldwin’s biography of Starmer, and shouted: ‘Look what you’ve just done!’
Indeed. I wrote in the days before Labour’s defeat in the 2019 election: ‘Look no further for the reason why the Conservatives look set to win a raft of seats in the Midlands and the North, some of which have supported Labour for as long as anyone can remember. These are all constituencies that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.’
Even afterward, Starmer, who was running for the Labour leadership, questioned whether the “free flow” of migration within the EU should continue after Brexit. [it] back.’
Now, however, he has focused his campaign on winning back the pro-Brexit voters he despised, with each poster mixing the red of the Labor Party with a Union Jack. How fortunate for Sir Keir that so many have short memories.