Why Trump's Ukraine Reversal May Be Europe's ‘9-11 Moment'
Subscribe to In The City on Apple podcasts
Subscribe to In The City on Spotify
Leaders across European capitals are scrambling to work out what the withdrawal of US military aid means for Ukraine and Europe's security as a whole. Led by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a 'coalition of the willing' has been formed to support Ukraine both financially and militarily. But will it be enough?
To help us answer that question, host Allegra Stratton is joined by Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative member of Parliament who previously served as security minister. He says the return of Donald Trump to the White House and his actions to distance America from Ukraine and Europe is a '9-11 moment—one of those moments where you have to rethink the fundamentals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
44 minutes ago
- CNET
Yes, an iPhone Could Cost More Than $2,200 With Tariffs. Should You Buy One Now?
Tariffs could soon raise the price of iPhone. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump announced he has made a deal with China, which could potentially affect the cost of a new iPhone -- but maybe not as much as you think. "WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%," Trump said in a post on Truth Social, noting that he and China's president, Xi Jinping, still need to give their final approval for the deal. However, 55% "total" tariff incorporates 30% the countries agreed to in May (10% "reciprocal tariff" + 20% "fentanyl tariff") and approximately 25% from tariffs that Trump imposed on China during his first term, according to a White House official. Although 55% is substantially less than the original 145% tariff against China Trump originally put in place, it's still likely to result in higher prices for many items, said Michael Coon, associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa. And the new tariff deal doesn't take into account the 25% smartphone tariff Trump announced shortly after Apple said it was moving production of US iPhones to India. "I would suspect that the 25% smartphone tariff would be added on top of the existing tariffs in China," he said. "I think the smartphone tariff is more reaction to India -- Apple's announcement that they were going to ship most of their production to India." Apple didn't mention tariffs during its Worldwide Developers Conference this week, but with the rumored iPhone 17 due for a price hike -- regardless of tariffs -- is now the time to buy a new iPhone? Read more: Thinking About Buying a New iPhone? Here's Why You Should Wait How much could tariffs raise iPhone prices? We do the math Companies don't always pass the full tariff onto customers in the form of higher prices, but they can. Even if Apple could absorb some of the costs, you should expect to see significant price jumps if tariffs take effect. "They're still going to probably pass 80% to 90% onto consumers, if they can," Coon said. "Unless they wanted to do some sort of marketing ploy out of it, which I don't suspect they would want to do, because that would be directly going up against the administration." Based on the current tariff rate, iPhones manufactured in China are already subject to a 25% tariff (from Trump's first term), but could now get an additional 30% tariff. Goods from India currently have a 10% baseline tariff but that could potentially soar to 26% next month. Here's how the current tariffs and potential 25% Apple tariff could affect the price of the iPhone. These figures are based on our estimates and not confirmed by Apple: How much could iPhones made in China cost after tariffs? Current price With new 30% tariff New tariff + 25% smartphone tariff iPhone 16e (128GB) $599 $779 $928 iPhone 16 (128GB) $829 $1,078 $1,285 iPhone 16 Plus (128GB) $929 $1,208 $1,440 iPhone 16 Pro (128GB) $999 $1,299 $1,548 iPhone 16 Pro Max (256GB) $1,199 $1,559 $1,858 iPhone 16 Pro Max (1TB) $1,599 $2,079 $2,478 How much could iPhones made in India cost after tariffs? Current price Current 10% tariff Potential 26% tariff Potential 26% tariff + 25% smartphone tariff iPhone 16e (128GB) $599 $659 $755 $904 iPhone 16 (128GB) $829 $912 $1,045 $1,252 iPhone 16 Plus (128GB) $929 $1,022 $1,171 $1,403 iPhone 16 Pro (128GB) $999 $1,099 $1,259 $1,508 iPhone 16 Pro Max (256GB) $1,199 $1,319 $1,511 $1,810 iPhone 16 Pro Max (1TB) $1,599 $1,759 $2,015 $2,414 Based on Coon's estimates that Apple could pass along up to 90% of the tariff cost to customers, that could raise the price of a new iPhone 16 Pro Max (1 TB) assembled in China to $2,230. "Estimates say it would cost $3,500 to produce an iPhone in the US. So, it would still be cheaper to produce in China," Coon said. There's a lot more that goes into the price of an iPhone than simply where it's assembled. Apple sources components for its products from a long list of countries, which could face higher tariffs after the pause. And a tariff on goods doesn't necessarily mean prices will increase by the same amount. If companies want to stay competitive, they could absorb some of the costs to keep their prices lower. Apple did not respond to a request for comment. When could we see iPhone prices increase? It's unclear exactly when prices could go up, but if companies sell out of devices produced before the tariffs, they may have to increase prices on products in tariffed shipments. However, even if Apple can't avoid tariffs entirely, it has ways to offset the impact through its services -- including its music, news and data plans -- according to supply chain expert Joe Hudicka. "Apple will likely absorb some of the tariff costs up front to keep sticker prices stable, then pass the rest on to consumers gradually through service bundles, device longevity and ecosystem upgrades," he said. "Consumers will still pay, just not all at once." And regardless of how the tariff drama plays out, the Wall Street Journal reports that Apple plans to raise iPhone prices later this year. So expect prices to go up soon. Is it better to buy an iPhone and other tech now or wait? If you already planned to buy a new smartphone, buying it now might save you money. But if you don't need a new phone immediately, you might want to wait, said CNET Managing Editor Patrick Holland, who's been reviewing phones for CNET since 2016. "If iPhone prices rise, know that, like cars, the prices for used iPhones will likely rise, too," he said. "If Apple does raise its prices, you'll likely get more for your old iPhone when you trade it in, and that should offset any increased prices." If you don't have the cash on hand and are considering using a credit card or buy now, pay later plan just to avoid tariffs, make sure you have the money to cover the costs before you start accruing interest. With credit cards' average interest rates currently more than 20%, the cost of financing a big purchase could quickly wipe out any savings you'd get by buying before prices go up because of tariffs. "If you finance this expense on a credit card and can't pay it off in full in one to two months, you'll likely end up paying way more than a tariff would cost you," said Alaina Fingal, an accountant, founder of The Organized Money and a CNET Money Expert Review Board member. "I would recommend that you pause on any big purchases until the economy is more stable." One way to save on Apple products, even if prices go up, is to buy last year's model instead of the newest release or a used one. And trading or selling a used one can help offset the cost even more. "Apple has leaned into that with its Certified Refurbished program, much like the auto industry's used car model," Hudicka said. "This program helps extend the lifespan of devices, keeping customers in the Apple ecosystem longer while distributing the cost impact over time." Buy or Wait Guide: How Tariffs Will Change Tech Prices and What to Do Next Buy or Wait Guide: How Tariffs Will Change Tech Prices and What to Do Next Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:30 Loaded : 79.36% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:30 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Buy or Wait Guide: How Tariffs Will Change Tech Prices and What to Do Next
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry. Ben Wallace served as Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. He is a former British Army officer 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.
