Britain has no friends, no money, and no grasp on reality
Donald Trump's America is putting itself first, reshaping the world, trashing allies and waging idiotic trade wars. Europe, mired in decadence and welfarism, is interested primarily in our military know-how, nuclear umbrella and, as always, our fisheries. Russia is a fascistic empire whose advances must be halted. China is a hostile civilisation. India doesn't really care. International institutions and courts serve as useful idiots for proto-Marxists keen to destroy the West.
We comfort ourselves with tales of how we can serve as a bridge between Europe and the US, or build a coalition of the willing in Ukraine. It's inspirational stuff, but it would be madness to cling to the certainties of the past. It's time for a total reset of our assumptions, of our understanding of history, of our modus operandi, of our international role.
We must reconstruct our economy, military and society for an era of trade wars, diplomatic blackmail, banditry, spheres of influence and power politics. We must embrace a neo-Gaullism with British characteristics, centred around a renewed love of country, a turbocharged, technologically advanced capitalist economy, much larger and more modern Armed Forces, a fully independent nuclear deterrent and a focus on resilience.
We need to be able to operate our own military without having to rely on parts from unreliable providers, to withstand embargoes or sanctions or cyber-attacks or pipelines being blown up or star wars. We must learn from how Trump treats Ukraine, or how Biden treated Israel, suspending arms sales. We must be able to project power and defend trade routes worldwide. We must retain as much free trade as possible, and slash tariffs further on friendly nations, but make sure that we can always get hold of essential goods and commodities.
We can no longer be naive, and assume that mercantilists who leverage trade for warfare are in fact followers of Milton Friedman or David Ricardo. In many cases, we will have to produce more military equipment in Britain, requiring reindustrialisation and greater steel manufacturing; in others, ensure a diversity of trading partners, buying weapons from Israel and Poland as well as the US, or food from Argentina rather than Spain.
The Atlanticists and the pro-Europeans alike are wrong. We should be friendly to the US and EU, but beholden to neither. America saved Britain during World War I; it rescued us from totalitarianism in World War II; it destroyed Soviet tyranny in the Cold War. It earned the eternal gratitude of mankind.
But those of us who love America must acknowledge how the US ruthlessly exploited its participation in the wars to demolish Britain's financial, maritime and geopolitical power. It treats its allies as vassals, rather than equals. In Stalin's War, Sean McMeekin recounts how Roosevelt suggested to Stalin in 1943 that India be taken away from Britain. It was best 'not to discuss the question of India with Mr Churchill', the US president said, arguing that America and Russia should remake India 'from the bottom, somewhat on the Soviet line'. Stalin couldn't believe his luck, or the way Roosevelt spoke of the greatest Englishman of all time.
John Maynard Keynes was sidelined at Bretton Woods. The 1947 sterling crisis was precipitated by America. The US betrayed us over Suez. Ronald Reagan disappointed on the Falklands, and invaded Grenada, a Commonwealth member, without properly informing Lady Thatcher. The IRA spent decades fundraising in the US while murdering in Britain. The UK sacrificed much in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 for no return; the 'special relationship' started to feel abusive. Barack Obama and Joe Biden disliked the UK, and removed Churchill's bust from the Oval Office. Obama took the EU's side over Brexit. Trump is an Anglophile, and may offer us a trade deal, but has no interest in our perspective.
Yet while America is now explicit in its leveraging of power for transactional purposes, Europe isn't the answer. The EU is an imperialist technocracy with an obsession with Hegelian dialectics and a hatred for traitor-nations that have thrown off the shackles of the acquis communautaire.
Membership of the EU crippled Britain: our parliamentary tradition, common law and what Hayek called our true individualism, the source of much of our exceptionalism, were eroded; our ties with the Commonwealth largely severed. The French (via agricultural subsidies and the containment of Germany) and the Germans (via a Germanic euro and the single market in goods) got far more out of the EU than we did; the European services sector was never liberalised, discriminating against Britain's comparative advantage. The EU treated us abominably when we left, seizing partial control of Northern Ireland.
We were regarded as enemies during Covid. In December 2020, France shut its borders to Britain, imposing a blockade that could have led to shortages of food and vaccines; the excuse was the Kent variant. In March 2021, Ursula von der Leyen threatened to block vaccine exports to the UK and to cancel private contracts. We remain too dependent on the EU, and on the Calais-Dover bottleneck. Any military help we offer Europe must come as a quid pro quo for easier trade.
The Government should immediately launch a Year Zero review of all policies, on the postulate that we cannot rely on anyone. We need to decouple from China when it comes to high-tech. We must scrap net zero, and produce more of our own energy. Faster productivity growth is required, necessitating a bonfire of regulations, a smaller state and reduced tax. We need to pull out of the ECHR and UN conventions to restrict migration and forge a cohesive civic nationalism.
Our early 21st-century settlement was predicated on an imaginary utopia in which we expected fair dealing from friends. In today's dog-eat-dog world, we must stand up for ourselves.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
3 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Europe pushes hard to sway Trump before Alaska summit with Putin on Ukraine
BRUSSELS — European leaders are seeking to impress upon President Donald Trump one key point before he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday: The West cannot — must not — negotiate away Ukrainian territory, especially for nothing in return. As Trump floats 'land swaps,' Kyiv's European backers have rejected a Russian proposal to trade Ukrainian land for an undefined truce. And they have issued declarations that 'international borders must not be changed by force.' European leaders are set to press their priorities in a call with Trump on Wednesday, organized by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, which will include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The call is intended to shape Trump's thinking before he sits down with Putin one-on-one in Alaska. The Europeans are insisting that Moscow agree to a ceasefire before negotiations over territory, and that Kyiv needs security guarantees. And, if such negotiations occur, a European counteroffer has pushed the idea that any retreat of Ukrainian forces from Ukrainian-controlled territory should be matched on an inch-for-inch basis by Russia's withdrawal from occupied Ukrainian territory, according to three people briefed on the discussions. European and NATO allies have often failed to sway Trump's thinking, or even to be heard by the U.S. president ahead of big policy decisions, such as to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. And they are frequently dismayed by Trump's policy moves, for example, his unilateral imposition of tariffs. The Europeans recognize that they can only do so much to influence a president who often veers off-script and likes nothing more than to declare a deal. But on Ukraine recently they have met with some success, for example, by persuading Trump to allow them to transfer U.S. weapons to Ukraine and purchase replacements for themselves. And in recent days, especially after a meeting with Vice President JD Vance in Britain over the weekend, they have found the U.S. administration receptive to some of their red lines. After that meeting, Vance, in a television interview, endorsed at least one European position — that the current line of contact and positioning of Ukrainian and Russian troops should be the starting point of any talks — rejecting a Russian demand that Ukraine first surrender its entire eastern Donbas area. Ahead of Wednesday's call some Europeans expressed guarded optimism, especially with Trump seeming to lower expectations of securing a deal in Alaska. There appears to be 'more of an understanding from the Americans that you can't just go for land swaps which would somehow give a prize to Russia,' said one European Union official, who like others in this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. Still, the official added, 'it's clear that there are sort of discrepancies, and as we've seen it in the U.S. system by now, you have one man who will decide.' But even with Trump making a more concerted effort to consult allies and keep them updated, there has been confusion over whether Putin is even willing to swap territory, officials said. The administration understood that a partial Russian retreat might be possible after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff returned from meeting with Putin in Moscow last week. However, the Russian offer apparently calls for a Ukrainian surrender of territory that Russian forces don't even control as a precondition for a ceasefire, the people briefed on the talks said. As that mix-up has come untangled, the administration has lowered expectations for the high-stakes Trump-Putin summit, officials said. Wednesday's call with Trump caps a flurry of meetings and statements organized by the Europeans since the Alaska summit was announced, all of which have provided a strong endorsement of Kyiv's position. Wednesday's virtual summit hosted by Germany will include the leaders of France, Britain, Italy, Poland, Finland, the E.U. and NATO. The Europeans will meet first with Zelensky before Trump and Vance are expected to join the call. Trump has also promised to call Zelensky and European leaders right after talking with Putin, to relay whether 'a fair deal' is on the table. 'It's not up to me to make a deal,' he told reporters Monday — seemingly echoing a European refrain that a truce cannot be sealed without them or Ukraine. 'I have many fears and a lot of hope,' Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said this week. Tusk said recent comments indicate Trump is increasingly understanding of Ukrainian and European views on the war, but that he was not so sure that would hold. 'I guess everyone's afraid Putin will play Trump's ego again like he has in the past,' said a second European official. 'Who knows, maybe he comes there with another noble-sounding offer or maybe they give [Trump] some state award.' Trump has repeatedly balked after threatening to pressure Russia into a ceasefire. As recently as last week, the president's mounting frustrations with Russia stalling on a ceasefire, and his threats of fresh U.S. sanctions, gave way to his invitation to Putin to meet on U.S. soil. While there has been speculation that Trump may yet try to involve Zelensky in the Alaska talks, European leaders are definitely not invited — giving them little sway over the diplomatic spectacle, even as they have become Ukraine's chief military and financial backer. Most proposals for a truce also envision a role for European nations in enforcing any deal that could reshape the continent's future security. In the scramble to sway Trump, European officials have also stressed that any deal must give Ukraine a bulwark against future attacks, especially because Putin is insisting that Ukraine be barred from joining NATO. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has suggested a deal could involve acknowledging de facto Russian control of some of Ukraine's regions, without Kyiv officially ceding them. If Trump's meeting with Putin advances to 'full-scale negotiations,' Rutte said Sunday, territory would 'have to be on the table,' as would security guarantees for Ukraine. Rutte said talks should recognize 'that Ukraine decides on its own future,' with 'no limitations' on its military or on NATO's posture in Eastern Europe. Freezing the current front lines would leave about one-fifth of Ukraine's territory in Russian hands. Ukraine, meanwhile, has little leverage for a land swap, holding a small toehold in Russia's western Kursk region since a faltering offensive last year. 'Europeans can say what they want, but in the end, Ukraine and Russia will have to agree,' said a third European official. 'It's unlikely there's a peace deal now where Putin says, okay, I'm going to withdraw from all of Ukraine.' The chief diplomat for the 27-nation European Union, Kaja Kallas, told the bloc's foreign ministers in recent days that the initial contours of a deal between Washington and Moscow seemed to 'focus on territory only' and that 'the Ukrainians are very worried,' according to a copy of a written note seen by The Washington Post. Kallas warned against a 'fragile ceasefire' that would solidify Russia's gains in more than three years of war. On Monday, Kallas held a four-hour virtual meeting of E.U. foreign ministers to deliberate on Ukraine ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting and on Israel's war in Gaza. The E.U. official said they didn't see 'willingness' from Kyiv or many of its staunch European allies for trading territory within Ukraine, citing distrust with Russia, which is pressing its advances in the east and attacks on Ukrainian cities. 'We have to understand the Ukrainian position, they have a million men who've been fighting for years now, so it's also something that President Zelensky wouldn't be able to have domestically accepted,' the official said. Though polls show war-weary Ukrainians increasingly favor a settlement to end the fighting, it would be tough to sell ceding territory — home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and where forces built up defensive lines over years — for a ceasefire that can't be guaranteed. But even as Europe insists that Ukraine must receive security guarantees, its own ideas of what those guarantees would look like remain fuzzy. Ukraine's chief backers say guarantees should start with pledges of more weapons and training for its army, and that they will reject any Russian demand to limit Ukraine's military. Kyiv's top aspiration — NATO membership — seems far-fetched without U.S. buy-in, and a plan for European troops in Ukraine remains on a back burner. Carl Bildt, a former prime minister of Sweden, said European governments can shape the talks as Ukraine's chief suppliers of arms and cash. 'That blocks the possibility for Trump to make any concessions to Putin on what I think is among the most important of his demands,' to halt the flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, Bildt said. European leaders also still control billions in Russian frozen assets that will factor into negotiations, as well as the battery of sanctions that Russia wants lifted. Camille Grand, a former NATO and French defense official, said there was a disconnect between Europe's financial and political investment in the Ukraine war and its role in the upcoming talks. 'The Europeans today provide the bulk of humanitarian, economic and military aid, and have now accepted to pay for American weapons,' Grand told French public radio, 'while in the negotiations, they can at best hope to influence the American position or to support Ukraine.' Catherine Belton in London contributed to this report.


San Francisco Chronicle
4 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Bangladeshi officials testify against former British minister Tulip Siddiq in anti-corruption trial
DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) — Bangladeshi anti-corruption officials testified in court on Wednesday against former British Minister Tulip Siddiq, accused of using her familial connection to deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to obtain state-owned land plots in the South Asian country. Siddiq, who is Hasina's niece, resigned from her post as an anti-corruption minister in Prime Minister Keir Starmer 's government in January following reports that she lived in London properties linked to her aunt and was named in an anti-corruption investigation in Bangladesh. She is being tried together with her mother, Sheikh Rehana, brother, Radwan Mujib, and sister, Azmina. Siddiq has been charged with facilitating their receipt of state land in a township project near the capital, Dhaka. The four were indicted earlier and asked to appear in court, however, the prosecution said they absconded and would be tried in absentia. The trial at the Dhaka Special Judge Court-4 formally began Wednesday with testimonies by officials of the country's Anti-Corruption Commission. By Wednesday afternoon, the court had heard from two officials and a third is expected to testify later in the day, said Muhammad Tariqul Islam, a public prosecutor. Siddiq's lawyers had previously called the charges baseless and politically motivated. Separately, the anti-corruption investigation has also alleged that Siddiq's family was involved in brokering a 2013 deal with Russia for a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh in which large sums of money were said to have been embezzled. Siddiq represents the north London district of Hampstead and Highgate in Parliament, served in Britain's center-left Labor Party government as economic secretary to the Treasury — the minister responsible for tackling financial corruption. Hasina was ousted after a 15-year rule in a student-led mass uprising in August last year. She fled to India and has been in exile ever since. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus took over as interim leader and vowed to try the former prime minister. Hundreds of protesters were killed during the uprising and Hasina now faces charges, including crimes against humanity. —


Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Launches Smithsonian Review To 'Ensure Alignment'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House has announced a review of some Smithsonian Institution museums to "ensure alignment" with President Donald Trump's goals. Newsweek has contacted the Smithsonian for comment via email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters In March, Trump signed an executive order, titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," to eliminate what his administration described as "improper ideology" across all branches of the Smithsonian—including its museums, research centers, educational initiatives and the National Zoo. The move sparked backlash online and from museum volunteers. In July, the Smithsonian National Museum of American History removed references to Trump's two impeachments from its exhibit on presidential impeachments, prompting a debate about historical accuracy and political influence on public institutions. A Smithsonian Institution sign on the National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on March 28. A Smithsonian Institution sign on the National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on March To Know A letter dated August 12 and addressed to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch said the White House would be leading "a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions." According to the letter, the review is timed to coincide with next year's celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence being signed. The letter described the review as a "constructive and collaborative effort," adding that it would focus on key areas such as public-facing content, the curatorial process, exhibition planning, collection use and narrative standards. The letter also said the initial review would focus on the following museums: National Museum of American History, National Museum of Natural History, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Museum of the American Indian, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian American Art Museum, National Portrait Gallery, and Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. These are not the only museums being reviewed. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in "Phase II." While the Smithsonian is independent of the government, it receives funding from Congress. As with Trump's March executive order, the review has received backlash online. Some social media users have raised concerns about the level of government intervention with the museums. What People Are Saying The White House's letter to the Smithsonian said: "This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." President Donald Trump wrote in his March executive order: "Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn—not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history. To advance this policy, we will restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness." Karly Kingsley, a media personality, wrote on X in a post viewed more than 200,000 times: "We're suspending the jobs report so you don't see how bad the numbers are, auditing the Smithsonian to match Trump's politics, fighting over gerrymandering the map, and deploying the military into cities. This isn't governance anymore. It's authoritarianism in plain sight." Journalist Dan Friedman wrote on X in a post viewed more than 40,000 times: "The White House pressuring the Smithsonian to 'eliminate political influence' from its presentation of history is some freaky Orwellian s***." What Happens Next The letter includes a 30-, 75- and 120-day implementation timeline. By the 120-day mark, "museums should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials."