
'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
Ukraine's former foreign minister has starkly warned that British mothers must accept their sons have to die defending Europe, otherwise there is no NATO.
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


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
FTSE 100 closes at record high as Trump's tariffs shake faith in US
Britain's main stock market index closed at an all-time high on Thursday as investors seeking refuge from America's market slump turned towards the UK. The FTSE 100 index of London's largest companies ended 0.2pc higher on Thursday at 8,834.92 points amid a backlash against Donald Trump's economic policies, which investors fear will hinder American companies' profits. The flagship British index, which had performed poorly in recent years compared with the US, is up by 8.7pc since the start of the year, beating America's S&P 500's which has risen by 2.7pc. Neil Wilson, of Saxo Bank said: 'We have clearly seen a rotation in global equity markets as investors have for the first time in years questioned the 'Tinata' – there is no alternative to America.' He said clients were talking about 'reducing exposure to the US'. The FTSE 100's record high came as the value of the dollar plunged to a three-year low after President Trump sparked fresh fears about global trade. The US currency sank on Thursday to its lowest level since March 2022 against a group of major peers, leaving it down by nearly 10pc so far this year. Investors have turned away from the dollar after the US president said he would send out letters to countries outlining the terms of trade deals. That sent the pound to a three-year high above $1.36 and pushed the euro to close at $1.16, its highest level since 2021, as the president's comments renewed concerns that US tariffs could hit global growth. 'I love China' In a further sign of his mixed signals on trade, President Trump sought to calm nerves by talking up the prospects of a US-China trade agreement, following two days of talks between Washington and Beijing officials in London this week. He wrote on his Truth Social platform: 'THE CHINA DEAL IS GREAT!' He later told reporters: 'I love China. We just made a deal, and I respect President Xi a lot, and we made a deal that's good for both countries. The deal we made with China good for both countries. Going to be a lot of money made, and it's going to ultimately open up China, which is the ultimate thing.' Charu Chanana, of Saxo Bank, said: 'Markets may have no choice but to respond to Trump's tariff threat – even if it's just posturing to bring others to the table.' The dollar was also hit by a flurry of data, which suggested the global economy was beginning to show signs of strain. Britain's goods exports to the US plunged at a record pace after President Trump launched his tariff onslaught in April, official figures showed. UK exports to the United States fell by £2bn compared with the previous month, according to the Office for National Statistics, which was the largest drop since official records began in 1997. The value of goods exports to the United States during the month – totalling £4.1bn – fell to its lowest level since February 2022. The US president hit Britain with 10pc tariffs under plans announced on April 2, a date which Mr Trump had long touted as his so-called 'liberation day'. Businesses dramatically changed their investment plans in response, bringing forward orders in an effort to get ahead of higher import taxes before they were announced. Official figures showed UK manufacturing output fell by 0.9pc in April, a further drop from 0.8pc in March but a sharp reversal from a 2.4pc surge in February. This was despite the high-profile announcement by Sir Keir Starmer of a trade agreement with the US last month, which is yet to be finalised. Robert Wood, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said: 'Exports should begin to stabilise in May now that the front-running has unwound and after President Trump began walking back some of his more ruinous tariffs. 'That said, the UK-US trade deal 'agreed' in May is yet to fully come into force so there could be further export weakness still ahead.' In a further sign of strain in the US, wholesale inflation ticked higher last month. The producer price index – which measures inflation before goods hit consumers – rose by 2.6pc in May, according to the Labor Department. This was up from 2.4pc in April but in line with expectations. Separate data showed US filings for jobless benefits were unchanged last week.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Iran's nuclear programme may get bombed by Israel. That would be bad for America - but not Trump's friends
Donal Trump has a problem – his affections appear to have been divided - because of Iran. Vladimir Putin, who he sees as a model leader, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who has a tough guy vibe the US President finds irresistible, are on opposite sides over Tehran's march towards nuclear weapons. The UN's International Atomic Energy Authority has just announced that Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. Iran says it has been warned by a 'friendly country' that Israel may attack its nuclear facilities. Israel fears Tehran is building a Bomb and its leaders have frequently pledged to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth. The Trump administration has seen this coming. The defence department has re-routed 20,000 air defence missiles destined for Ukraine to US forces in the Middle East. The US is also drawing down on embassy staff, warning Americans to get out of Iraq, and generally bracing for what may be retaliation following a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran. Of course, such an attack would need to be supported by the US – not least in terms of air refuelling and logistical support. It would probably involve the use of US bombs and certainly US manufactured aircraft. Iran has ordered its armed forces are mobilized for drills focussed on 'enemy movements'. Gulf nations like Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates will be jittery – they've signed the Abraham Accords normalizing relations with Israel and, along with Qatar, have large US naval or air force bases on their territory. Trump has long derided the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed with Iran which dialled back its nuclear ambitions and has frequently warned Iran not to try to develop a nuclear weapon. He would be happy to see Israel take the initiative – after all he has defended Netanyahu's actions in Gaza, even putting sanctions on the International Criminal Court because is 'abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant'. But Russia is deeply involved in Iran's nuclear programme. Moscow has a long-standing programme to develop Iran civilian nuclear power industry and has already built the Bushehr I plant, is building the Bushehr II reactor and is planning on more at Sirik and Karun. Iran also supplies drones, built drone factories in Russia, helps with missile technology and is bound into Moscow's military-industrial complex at deep levels that have grown deeper with the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Iran is a key ally in Russia's war in Europe. Trump has maintained staunchly pro-Russian positions on Ukraine in demanding that any future peace deal leaves Russia in control of about a fifth of Ukraine, and out of Nato. Trump has taken Russia's side at UN refusing to condemn Moscow's invasion. He has stopped allocating military aid to Kyiv. A large-scale Israeli attack on Iran aimed at its nuclear programme would also have to focus on its wider military capabilities. Those are capabilities that Russia draws on. Trump has little real influence over Netanyahu and will not try, publicly anyway, to hold him back for fear of rejection. The Israeli Prime Minister has repeatedly shown that he's largely immune to pressure from the White House. But as Trump's agenda so far this year has been to undermine long-standing alliances and friendships with the US in favour of Israel and Russia – the threat of conflict between Israel and Iran doesn't tear at his loyalties. Israel could remove a growing nuclear threat from Iran's regime which has threatened annihilation. Russia is already benefitting from Ukraine's loss of 20,000 missiles. And if Iran counter attacks with assaults on US targets in the Middle East the US president is confident his forces could defend themselves. But pressure to further downgrade US involvement in the region will grow in Washington – and that suits Putin just fine. None of this would be good for America. But at home and abroad, that doesn't look like a priority for Trump – who consistently favours men like Putin and Netanyahu and who both may gain from chaos in the Middle East.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Miliband is wasting billions on the wrong nuclear technology
Ed Miliband first succumbed to his idée fixe on Sizewell C in 2009 and that is the problem. The concept is sixteen years out of date. The technological and commercial case for European pressurised reactors (EPR) has been diminishing ever since. It is not a question of whether you are for or against nuclear, or for or against renewables. That culture war absolutism does no favours to the nation. Nuclear technology is in a state of creative revolutionary ferment in America and China. Sizewell C is a throwback to another age. It is a very expensive refinement of 20th-century fission – Gen III in the jargon – with layer after layer of protective barriers, able to withstand an earthquake, a tsunami, a head-on crash by an A380, or a meltdown of the core. You pay to make this old technology super-safe. The International Energy Agency says the capital cost of Hinkley Point, the sister EPR plant to Sizewell C, works out at $16,000 (£12,000) per kilowatt (kW) of gross capacity, compared to $2,700 kW for the simpler Saeul 1 and 2 reactors in Korea. There are hidden subsidies in the Korean figures, but the gap is astonishing. By the time Sizewell C delivers its first watt to the grid in the late 2030s – or 2040 more likely – the world will already be humming with small modular reactors (SMRs) that can made in factories like Nissan Micras, shipped in parts by road and rail, and rolled out in a third of the time. Bill Gates started building his advanced SMR in Wyoming a year ago. If that does not make you stop and pause, it ought to. His TerraPower Gen IV Natrium plant is radically different from old light-water reactors. It is a pocket-sized 350 megawatt (MW) sodium-cooled reactor coupled with molten salt storage. It can ramp up to 500 MW when needed. It dovetails with a modern flexible decentralised grid. The project is built on the site of a coal-powered plant, which means that cables, roads and an eager workforce are all in place. That slashes the cost by 30pc and takes years off the development time. TerraPower originally hoped to supply dispatchable zero-carbon power at $50-$60 per megawatt hour (MWh). Inflation will have pushed up the cost but it is still likely to be a lot lower than Hinkley Point at a strike price of $178 (in today's money). The company is eyeing the UK market. I am willing to bet that TerraPower or something like it will be generating electricity for British data centres or industrial hubs years before Sizewell C fires up – if it ever gets that far, which I question. Or there is X-energy, co-owned by Amazon and able to tap the capital markets for near unlimited sums. It has applied to build its 80 MW, helium-cooled mini-reactors in Texas to supply Dow's petrochemical campus. Unlike the Hinkley-Sizewell reactors, its SMR generates both electricity and 'high-quality heat' (750 degrees) that can be used for heavy industries. It can flex up and down, does not need a vast containment dome and requires no refuelling halts. If not these two, it could be one of the 80 or so different SMR technologies in the global nuclear race, several funded by tech billionaires. Labour has selected the Rolls-Royce design for Britain's first batch of SMRs. They will supply the grid. I heartily applaud. It is home-grown technology and will have 80pc domestic content. It supports a defence company that is critical for UK rearmament and nuclear submarines. What worries me is that a) it is a small version of a standard light-water reactor, and b) the target date has slipped to the mid-2030s. If we are going to press ahead with an older Gen III technology, we had better get a move on. Great British Nuclear has ordered three of the 470 MW reactors; a good signal, yes, but too few to turbo-charge development and pull forward delivery. 'It is not enough to stand up commercial operations,' said the company's Dan Gould. Rolls-Royce is in SMR talks with the Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland and a host of other countries, as well as with a private energy group in the Netherlands. Nothing is yet firm. Mr Miliband would have done better with our money to order 10 or 12 Rolls-Royce reactors. That would have reached critical mass and crowded in hesitant buyers. Instead, Labour is committing a further £14.2bn to Sizewell C and blowing smoke in our eyes with its 'regulated asset base model'. 'They are not telling us how much this is going to cost. They are hiding behind the RAB model,' said Michael Liebreich, founder of BNEF. I would be more forgiving if the Government had not botched the 3.8 gigawatt (GW) Xlinks project, which has money lined up, requires no taxpayer subsidy and is offering to start supplying the UK with baseload power from southern Morocco by 2030. The plan combines Sahara solar power with desert winds that kick up every evening (a convection effect), generating electricity all year round. It would be transmitted to Cornwall via the world's longest cables. All that Xlinks needs is a standard contract for difference of circa £75 MWh and it can start building. Labour has sat on it. Nuclear fusion is further away than SMRs but it is no longer science fiction. High-temperature superconductors have suddenly made it possible to build a fusion plant 40 times smaller than once was the case. This radically changes the economics of fusing hydrogen isotopes to make power, either by squeezing super hot plasma inside a tokamak with magnets, or by inertial fusion with lasers. It has unlocked a torrent of investment funding. Britain is a world-class player in the field, the legacy of the Joint European Torus project at Culham. Mr Miliband did well to secure another £2.5bn to keep this country in the fusion race, funding both the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (Step) in Nottingham and the wider fusion ecosystem around Oxford. Britain should have valuable niches breeding tritium fuel and making superconducting magnets for the world market. Fusion ticks every box. It provides clean, constant baseload power. It creates almost no long-term waste. It is so safe that it can be regulated like a hospital. It uses almost no land and little water. I have no idea what it will cost but Bob Mumgaard, the head of America's Commonwealth Fusion Systems, told me that he was aiming for $80 MWh at his first plant in Virginia in the early 2030s. I have heard similar figures from other fusion companies. Where does Sizewell C fit in this new nuclear order? We know the track record of EPR reactors. The Flamanville project in France was 12 years late and six times over budget. The French Cour des Comptes says the final tally was €19.1bn (£16.3bn), calling it an 'operational failure', undertaken with hubris. Perhaps Flamanville was unlucky. The concrete pillars were 'pockmarked with holes'. Nobody noticed for nine months that the steel reactor vessel had unsafe levels of carbon content. We were told that lessons had been learnt, both there and at Olkiluoto in Finland. The next in the EPR series, at Hinkley Point, would be faster and cheaper. Dream on. I am not against bold industrial ventures. They lift the national spirit. Defenders say the costs of Hinkley and Sizewell are much lower than the nosebleed headline figures once you stretch the lifetime to 60 or 80 years. Realists say we need a large enough nuclear power industry to sustain our military nuclear deterrent. I get all that. But locking the country into yesterday's technology as far out as the 22nd century is a fateful step. It will not cut energy bills – ceteris paribus – and is not needed to tackle green intermittency. We can rely on cheaper gas peaker plants to buttress renewables for a few more years until SMRs, fusion and new fission come of age. Let me make a wager. Sizewell C will not survive real scrutiny or the next austerity crisis. It has HS2 written all over it.