'British mothers must accept their sons have to die to defend Finland, or there is no NATO': Chilling warning as Putin looks to test if Europe will stand up to his forces
Dmytro Kuleba, who was in office between March 2020 and September 2024, told Metro that Vladimir Putin 's goal was to 'expose' the 'falsehood' of the NATO alliance, which has a mutual assistance clause that compels its members to fight for each other in the event of an attack of another member.
He said: 'Putin may invade NATO territory soon – so now what? Is NATO going to send a division to fight back?'
'Many people believe that the real test for NATO is whether the US is going to fight for Europe.
'The real test will be whether British mothers will actually accept that their sons have to die for Finland or Estonia or Poland. If they don't, there is no NATO.'
The chilling warning comes after Germany 's spy chief warned that Putin is plotting to attack a NATO territory to test the bloc's mutual assistance clause.
'This is is how World War II started. 'Why fight for Danzig [now the city of Gdańsk]? Let's give it to Hitler, it is just a city in Poland. Why should we die for it?' That was the question asked by western European nations [at the time].
'And this is exactly the question that Putin is going to pose to NATO. Europe is already spending money on weapons, but it has to do so much faster.
'But the real question is, who is going to tell the voters that the threat of the war is real?'
Kubela said his warning comes from personal experience, telling Metro that as Minister of Foreign Affairs during Russia's invasion, he made the mistake of believing that Russia would withdraw after losing 'like 10,000, 20,000 soldiers.'
But as Russia nears the point of having one million soldiers killed or wounded in Ukraine since war broke out in February 2022, he pleaded with British citizens not to underestimate Putin.
He said: 'People in Britain or any other country can listen to what I'm saying or they can decide that I am a warmongering Ukrainian who is trying to pull them into my war.
'I am perfectly fine with any choice they make. What I can say, what I can urge them, is not to repeat our mistakes.
'The biggest mistake Ukraine made was that we did not believe that this can happen to us on this scale. We, in Ukraine, also believed that it is not going to happen to us because Putin would never dare to do it.
'So this is the mistake that people are making. I look around in Europe and I just see the same pattern happening. The same pattern of behaviour.
'Do you think that if Ukraine was able to attack airfields in Russia, 1,000 miles away from Ukraine, Russia is not able to attack any piece of infrastructure in any European country? That would be a very, very big mistake to think so.'
Earlier, Bruno Kahl, the outgoing head of Germany's federal intelligence service (BND), said in a rare interview that it has 'concrete' evidence that Russia no longer believes NATO's Article 5 will be honoured.
This is the clause which guarantees that if one member is attacked, all others will come to its aid.
He told the German podcast Table Briefings: 'We see that NATO is supposed to be tested in its mutual assistance promise. There are people in Moscow who don't believe that NATO article 5 still works.'
He said: 'We are very sure, and we have intelligence evidence to back this up, that [Russia's full-scale invasion of] Ukraine is only one step on Russia's path towards the west.'
But Kahl was quick to say: 'This doesn't mean that we expect large tank battalions to roll from the east to the west.'
He added that Russia didn't need to do this, as they could simply send 'little green men to Estonia to protect supposedly oppressed Russian minorities.'
Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea involved occupation of buildings and offices by Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms and civilian clothes, who came to be known as the 'little green men' when Moscow initially denied their identity.
Kahl, who is set to become Germany's ambassador to the Vatican, did not specify which officials in Moscow were thinking along these lines.
He said that Moscow's ultimate aim was to push NATO back to its 1990s borders, 'kick out' the US from Europe and aggressively expand its influence.
'We need to nip this in the bud', he said.
Key to NATO cooperation, he pointed out, was the US and its enormous army.
Kahl said his contacts with U.S. counterparts had left him convinced they took the Russian threat seriously.
'They take it as seriously as us, thank God,' he said.
It comes after NATO boss Mark Rutte warned that Britons should start learning Russian if the UK doesn't ramp up defence spending.
Mark Rutte issued the chilling message while in London for talks with PM Sir Keir Starmer, ahead of a NATO summit later this month.
NATO allies are expected to be asked at the gathering to agree a commitment on allocating 3.5 per cent of GDP to core defence spending by the 2030s.
A further 1.5 per cent of GDP would be required for 'defence-related expenditure' under Mr Rutte's plan to strengthen the alliance.
It follows pressure from US President Donald Trump on European members of NATO to hike their military budgets.
There are questions about how the UK would fund such an huge increase - roughly equivalent to an extra £30billion annually.
Britain allocated 2.33 per cent of GDP to defence last year, and Sir Keir has only committed to reaching 2.5 per cent by April 2027.
The Labour Government has an 'ambition' of increasing that to 3 per cent in the next parliament - likely to run to 2034.
Speaking at Chatham House on Monday, Mr Rutte was asked if he believed Chancellor Rachel Reeves should raise taxes to meet NATO's commitments.
The NATO secretary-general replied: 'It's not up to me to decide, of course, how countries pay the bill.
'Look, if you do not do this, if you would not go to the 5 per cent, including the 3.5 per cent core defence spending, you could still have the NHS... the pension system etc., but you had better learn to speak Russian.'
Mr Rutte would not reveal the deadline for when he hopes NATO allies will spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence.
Asked about a deadline, he told reporters: 'I have a clear view on when we should achieve that.
'I keep that to myself, because we are having these consultations now with allies, and these discussions are ongoing.
'We will in the end agree on a date when we have to be there.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
A ferry link between Scotland and France could be one step closer
A ferry linking Scotland to Europe could be one step closer to reality after a key border obstacle may be resolved. Ferry operator DFDS is planning on launching a service between the town of Rosyth in Fife, Scotland, and Dunkirk in France, as early as spring 2026, allowing for both passengers and freight to be transported between the countries. The route is nicknamed 'Project Brave', and was first proposed in 2022. If instated, the journey could take up to 20 hours, making it among the longest in Europe. One of the main barriers to the project was the need for certain goods to be processed at a border control post. Building a new facility at Rosyth was deemed expensive and unnecessary. DFDS proposed using the existing border control post at Grangemouth, in Scotland, instead, however local politicians say a new UK-EU deal could mean that checks at the posts would no longer be needed. In May, prime minister Keir Starmer confirmed a new agreement with the European Union, which means food and drink can be more easily imported and exported 'by reducing the red tape'. Goods are expected to flow more freely as some routine checks on animal and plant products will be removed. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU to determine specific requirements. Scottish MP Graeme Downie said this week that the new deal could bypass the need for border control posts, according to the Dunfermline Press, but temporary use of Grangemouth will be required for the ferry to launch by spring 2026. 'A regular passenger and freight ferry service from Rosyth to Dunkirk would be an incredible boon for the Dunfermline and Scottish economy, making trade easier as well as making it simpler for people from Europe to visit the kingdom of Fife," he said. 'These matters can be complex but we have taken a huge stride towards making this ferry service a reality.' Secretary of state for Scotland, Ian Murray, has written to Steve Reed, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, detailing how the ferry service could launch without the new border control point, the local paper reported. He asked that for an 'urgent' amendment to the current model, and thanked Mr Murray for his support in finding a temporary workaround. '[The] efforts make it more likely a passenger and freight ferry to Dunkirk could begin as soon as next year,' he said.
