logo
An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine

An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine

Telegraph27-02-2025

If the recent history of European military cooperation is anything to go by, Moscow has little to fear from the proposed deployment of a motley collection of European troops to safeguard Ukraine's security.
In their desperate efforts to curry favour with US president Donald Trump, various European leaders have mooted the idea of sending some, as yet undefined, military contingent to keep the peace in the event of a lasting ceasefire being implemented between Kyiv and Moscow.
Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to apply a sticking plaster to the edifice of Britain's crumbling Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget, was clearly designed to give him a veneer of credibility before his meeting with Trump.
Having pledged UK support for any future military operation to guarantee Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the sceptical Trump administration that our Armed Forces still retain the ability to conduct such a role. French president Emmanuel Macron is similarly keen on the idea of dispatching a European force to Ukraine, telling Trump this week that he was working with Starmer to send troops to the region.
'Not to go to the front line, not to go in confrontation, but to be in some locations, being defined by the treaty, as a presence to maintain this peace and our collective credibility,' the French leader told Fox News.
Several European countries have expressed reservations about the Starmer/Macron peace initiative, not least their vagueness about the role such a force would fulfil.
Of equal concern should be the dismal record of Europe's military powers of working effectively together on major security challenges – as was evident the last time the European powers contributed to a major overseas military operation, in Afghanistan.
At its height, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to bring some semblance of stability to the war-torn nation, comprised significant contributions from all the main European powers.
The total number of British forces eventually reached around 10,000, in support of the US-led operation. Germany sent 5,000 troops, Italy nearly 4,000 while the 4,000-strong French contingent included large numbers of special forces.
The total Nato forces operating in Afghanistan – which is roughly the same size as Ukraine – reached a peak number of around 130,000. But the ability of the different forces – especially the Europeans – to work together to achieve the same policy objectives was virtually non-existent.
From the outset, the Italians were hampered by constraints imposed by the their country's government, which prevented them from participating in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency, while the German group was so risk averse it rarely ventured out of its heavily defended base in the northern district around Mazar-i-Sharif. The French, meanwhile, fulfilled a peripheral role until their then president Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally ended their involvement, thereby precipitating the collapse of the entire mission.
Is there any evidence that the Europeans are better equipped now for a Ukraine mission?
With no guarantees that the Trump administration will authorise US involvement in such an operation, the onus would be on the Europeans to provide their own command and logistics infrastructure, something that is badly lacking given their pre-Trump disinclination to take their defence responsibilities seriously.
While Nato has made significant efforts in recent years to improve operational inter-operability between the armies, navies and air forces of the alliance's European members, it remains questionable whether they could function without the support of the American military.
Concerns about Trump's long-term commitment to Nato, though, have prompted some to argue in favour of the European Union resurrecting its plans to establish its own defence and security operation to rival the Transatlantic alliance.
If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on the role – or so the argument goes.
This is short-sighted. Trump is a challenging ally but that does not mean the EU should turn its back on Nato and establish its own military force.
Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its failure to take seriously its defence obligations, both in terms of financial contributions and military effectiveness.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Nigel Farage calls for ‘re-industrialisation' of Wales
Nigel Farage calls for ‘re-industrialisation' of Wales

Western Telegraph

time21 minutes ago

  • Western Telegraph

Nigel Farage calls for ‘re-industrialisation' of Wales

On a visit to South Wales, the leader of Reform UK said the resumption of traditional steelmaking and coal production is the party's long-term ambition if it comes to power. The speech came one year ahead of the Senedd elections in May next year, where the party is looking to end Labour's 26 years of domination. Addressing reporters, Mr Farage acknowledged that plans to open a traditional furnace could take years and cost 'in the low billions'. The GMB Union has branded the plans 'more lies from an opportunistic chancer'. Tata Steel's Port Talbot steelworks in south Wales (Ben Birchall/PA) Port Talbot's remaining blast furnaces were shut down in September last year, with a new electric arc furnace being built in their place. 'Our ambition is to re-industrialise Wales,' Mr Farage said. 'We are going to be using more steel over the next few years than we have probably ever used. 'As we increase military spending and as we attempt a house building programme in Wales, and even more so in England, of massive proportions, just to catch up with the population explosion over the last 20 years, we are going to need a lot of steel.' The Reform leader said 'specific types of coal' are needed in the UK, particularly for a new blast furnace. 'We should be producing ourselves, rather than importing,' he said. While he acknowledged 'mining is dangerous', he said the industry could provide well-paying jobs. Mr Farage acknowledged the plan to open a new furnace would cost 'in the low billions' and would be 'no easy thing'. 'It's a massive, expensive job to re-open blast furnaces, we're going to need cheaper energy, we're going to need much cheaper coal, we are going to need private business partners prepared to come into a joint venture,' he said. Responding to the GMB Union allegations that his party's plans were 'lies', Mr Farage said the union was tied to the Labour Party as one of its biggest funders. He said: 'They see us as a challenge, and therefore, they'll be rude about us. 'What you will find is that increasingly, GMB members are going to vote for us, and the more GMB members vote for us, the more upset GMB officials and leaders will become. 'Frankly, the trade unions have done nothing to protect British workers through open borders over the last 20-25 years.' During his speech, Mr Farage said he doubted that the electric arc furnace, which is due to come online in 2028, 'will ever, ever be switched on'. Challenged on what evidence he had, he argued that with British energy prices being so high, it would be producing 'very, very expensive secondary steel'. He added: 'I hope I'm wrong, an electric arc furnace is not the real deal, but it's better than nothing.' Mr Farage said the party's campaign for the Senedd election next May 'starts today', but would not say when Reform would announce a leader in Wales. Regional officer Ruth Brady, speaking at the GMB's annual conference in Brighton, said: 'The people of Port Talbot will see this for what it is – more lies from this opportunistic chancer. 'Nigel Farage was happy to let British Steel go to the wall. He'll trot out any line when the cameras are rolling. He doesn't care about steel communities or steel workers.' Ms Brady said the plans to shut the blast furnaces were made by the last Tory government and the union wanted Labour to 'make good on their promises to our members in Port Talbot'.

Putin's summer of savage brutality has just begun
Putin's summer of savage brutality has just begun

Telegraph

time23 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Putin's summer of savage brutality has just begun

In the aftermath of Ukraine's audacious 'Operation Spider's Web', which claimed as many as 41 of Russia's military jets in drone attacks on four airbases across the country last Sunday, Vladimir Putin vowed revenge. Relaying his conversation with the Russian president in the attack's aftermath, Donald Trump said – without the slightest hint of alarm or condemnation – 'president Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields'. Now, it appears that response has arrived. Overnight, Moscow launched its 'biggest overnight bombardment' of the war so far, according to Ukraine's air force, directing 479 drones and 20 missiles predominantly at the western and central parts of the country. The attack reached as far west as Rivne, unnerving Poland – Ukraine's neighbour – to such a degree that it felt compelled to scramble its airforce to patrol for stray missiles. Moscow has been ramping up the intensity of its attacks on Ukraine for several weeks now, setting new records for the number of drones launched on consecutive weekends in a row. But Operation Spider's Web appears to have triggered an escalation in Russia's bombardment. Just on Thursday, Ukrainian officials reported that over 400 had once again been launched at the country, with the capital city Kyiv heavily bombarded and over 50 people injured nationwide. While Ukraine's air defences are able to shoot down most of the drones sent their way, even the fraction that get through manage to do a great deal of damage and impact civilian morale, as Ukrainians across the country are forced into bomb shelters day after day. The escalation in Moscow's aerial attacks on Ukraine comes as the signs increasingly point to yet another new Russian offensive getting underway this summer. Some analysts argue that it has already started. Putin's forces are advancing through Donetsk and Luhansk and appear to have their sights set on the region of Dnipropetrovsk. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed this morning that the aim of the advance was, in part, to create a 'buffer zone' along the front line. According to Ukrainian military intelligence, some 125,000 Russian troops are also being amassed in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions. Some analysts suggest their aim could be to try and push forward as close to the Dnipro river, which runs north to south through the country, by the end of the year as possible. For all of Putin's insistence to Trump that he is ready to discuss an end to his war in Ukraine, the actions of his army suggest quite the opposite. Last month, while Russian and Ukrainian delegations met in Istanbul to notionally discuss terms for the end to the war, Putin's troops gained territory twice as quickly as in April. Bluntly put, despite Operation Spider's Web, Putin remains on the front foot in the war and as long as he's willing to sacrifice ever more Russians to the meat grinder of the front line, he will probably remain so. At the moment, he simply has no incentive to sit down and seriously negotiate an end to this conflict – with Trump, Zelensky or anyone else. To think otherwise is simply delusional.

Nato chief to call on UK to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence
Nato chief to call on UK to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence

ITV News

time28 minutes ago

  • ITV News

Nato chief to call on UK to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence

Life comes at you fast in Downing Street. It's only a week since the Prime Minister was dodging questions about when he would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. Today the Nato Secretary General is in town to tell Keir Starmer that actually Britain ought to spend 3.5% by 2035. Its expected the PM will agree with the target. And we are talking big sums here. That extra 0.5% is worth north of £17bn. Put a different way our defence budget of around £60bn would have to rise to more like £100bn to meet the 3.5% which is the new Nato target. Thats an NHS scale amount of money. And it inevitably means spending cuts elsewhere or tax rises or both. There are two reasons for this. The first is Vladimir Putin, the second is Donald Trump. Putin has shown he is ready and willing to attack his European neighbours. Trump has suggested he is less willing to come to the rescue. Today it is Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. That's where we come in. Those three Baltic states are all Nato members. If they are attacked we would be obliged to defend them, we would be at war with Russia; that's the Nato deal. Mark Rutte wants Nato to be big enough, tough enough and determined enough to deter Putin, to make it not worth his while to test the alliance. But Nato's 2035 target is, of course, ten years away. Many defence analysts think that it will only take Putin a couple of years after ending the Ukraine war to reconstitute his armed forces. So here's the key question; are we in a Cold War moment when the threat in Europe will not materialise, or a pre-1939 moment when it will?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store