No doubt, in the years to come we will wonder why the defense issue had no place in the 2024 general elections.
There was only a passing discussion when the Conservatives boasted they would increase defence spending from its current level of 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP “by 2030”, while Labour said it would reach 2.5 per cent “when conditions permit”.
The latter is a meaningless claim, but the conservatives’ claim is not a triumph of the resolution.
And it is extraordinary that the increasing likelihood of Donald Trump being (re)elected president, following the cruel public exposure of Joe Biden’s incompetence in last week’s so-called debate, has not yet brought the question of defense into the spotlight in our own election.
A fortnight ago, I attended a lunch hosted by Westminster’s leading think tank, Policy Exchange, for the man many consider to be Trump’s national security adviser 2.0: Elbridge Colby, pictured.
Colby, like Trump, views China as the only serious threat to American interests, and believes Washington’s entire military strategy must be directed against Xi Jinping’s plans for “Asian hegemony” — Beijing taking control of the archipelago of islands stretching from Japan to Taiwan to the southern edge of the South China Sea.
Abandon
It could hardly be clearer that Donald Trump, back in the White House, will not simply demand that we and other European countries pay much, much more of the costs of defending against the depredations of the Kremlin’s insatiable warmonger: he actually has no intention to help us.
Last month it was revealed that Trump had told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: “We are leaving, we are leaving NATO. And by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you Germans don’t “They paid what they had to pay for defense.”
This is said to have been some sort of bluff; Trump’s negotiating tactic to get the Europeans to pay more.
No, according to John Bolton, who was his National Security Advisor: “I was there when he almost withdrew (from NATO), and he is not negotiating. His objective here is not to strengthen NATO, it is to lay the foundations for leaving.”
A fortnight ago, I attended a luncheon held by Westminster’s leading think tank, Policy Exchange, for the man many see as Trump’s national security adviser 2.0: Elbridge Colby.
The formidably eloquent Colby, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense during the first Trump administration, surprised the British military panjandrums present with his strong hint that he did not necessarily see a Russian attack on a European NATO member as a reason for The United States will send its forces into action.
He was unmoved when one of the guests pointed out that when the United States, after 9/11, sought support for its invasion of Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden lurked), all of its NATO allies also sent troops in support.
Colby, like Trump, considers China the only serious threat to American interests and believes that Washington’s entire military strategy must be directed against Xi Jinping’s plans for “Asian hegemony”: for Beijing to take control of the archipelago of islands that extends from Japan, through Taiwan, to the southern tip of the South China Sea.
So, Colby told us, we must “deprioritize” Europe, ridiculing what he called “the idea that we should break our spear on Europe, which is much less important to the American people.”
Later, when I spoke to him, 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 per cent of UK GDP on defence. Why not 3.5 per cent? That’s what the US spends.”
Fair point. Half a century ago, when there was no war in Europe, 5 percent of our GDP was spent on defense.
Caused
Ukraine is now the front line. This, at least, has emerged in the election debates, after Donald Trump’s friend Nigel Farage claimed in a BBC interview that the large-scale invasion of Ukraine was the result of Putin being “provoked by the NATO expansion.
In fact, before the Kremlin’s tanks rolled toward kyiv 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 did not pose any threat to Russia’s national security. Now they themselves will not feel so safe.
If Sir Keir Starmer becomes prime minister on Friday, he will travel to Washington four days later to attend a NATO summit marking the 75th anniversary of its founding.
The encroaching shadow of Donald Trump will loom over him, and Europe will be told that when it comes to Russia, it should deal with itself.
If that happens, here is the question that has not been asked once in this election: how does Labour propose to pay for a generational increase in defence spending?
Starmer fought Corbyn: to stop Brexit
Sir Keir Starmer has never given a direct 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.
But Starmer tried again last week, telling an interviewer that he was “right to fight from within the shadow cabinet” and citing “commitment to NATO” as an example.
In reality, NATO membership was never an issue. But Brexit was. And on this issue, Starmer definitely fought Corbyn: the then Labor leader was adamantly opposed to the idea of a second referendum.
Sir Keir Starmer has never given a straight 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.
Starmer, however, knew that party members (unlike millions of Labour voters) were virulently anti-Brexit and wanted the country to vote again on the issue.
At the 2018 party conference in Liverpool, without warning the leaders, Starmer called for a second referendum, adding: “And no one is ruling out Remain as an option.”
Delighted members rose to applause, but the Tories instantly posted on social media: “Confirmed: Labour will not respect the result of the referendum.” Waving a copy of this in Sir Keir’s face, according to Tom Baldwin’s biography of Starmer, Corbyn’s political secretary Amy Jackson shouted: “Look what you’ve just done!”
Indeed. I wrote in the days before Labour’s defeat at the 2019 election: “Look no further for the reason why the Tories look set to win a swathe of seats in the Midlands and the North, some of which have not stopped supporting Labour for as long as anyone can remember. These are all constituencies that voted strongly for Brexit.”
Even after that, Labor Party leadership candidate Starmer asked whether “free movement” of migration with the EU should be maintained after Brexit, and replied: “Of course, bring it back.”
Now, however, he has focused his campaign on winning back the pro-Brexit voters he once disdained, and has mixed the red of the Labour Party with the Union Jack on all his posters. How fortunate for Sir Keir that so many have short memories.
