Britain must now be a voice for Ukraine
When the histories of the Ukraine war are written, Britain's actions at its outbreak are likely to be viewed as pivotal to its outcome. When other capitals dithered, London supplied military aid, including NLAW anti-tank weapons, and rallied support around the world.
This conflict now appears to be approaching a possible conclusion, with Donald Trump declaring his intention to open negotiations with counterpart Vladimir Putin. Notably, Europe does not appear to be set to play a significant role in the negotiations.
Diplomats across the continent have made clear their displeasure at this outcome, but the simple reality of hard power is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. European capitals have spent years talking as if this were the second coming of 1938, on the precipice of a potential continental war of cataclysmic proportions. With a few noble exceptions such as Warsaw, however, they have not backed these words with the requisite spending on defence. If Donald Trump feels able to unilaterally decide the future of Europe, it is because Europe has passed up the opportunity to decide it for itself.
With that said, it is clear that Ukraine, at least, should be allowed some say in its future. President Zelensky has stated that it will not accept any deal negotiated without Kyiv's participation. While there is little doubting its will to fight on, there are legitimate questions about its ability to do so without the support provided by the United States.
Just as Britain stepped up at the beginning of this conflict, it should step up again as it approaches its potential end. Our role now is to be a voice for Ukraine and its interests, to ensure that these are not lost in the rush to strike a bargain, and that preparation is made for its reconstruction.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
26 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?
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Fresh Los Angeles rallies planned to demand release of arrested union leader
Los Angeles was waking Monday up to another day of high tensions with Donald Trump's administration, the fourth since protests began over efforts by federal immigration authorities' attempts to arrest illegal migrants in the city and a day after the president ordered in the national guard. New rallies against US immigration and customs enforcement (Ice) detentions are planned, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announcing an event 'to demand justice for detained immigrants and an end to the ongoing human rights abuses by Ice'. 'We will not be intimidated. We will not be silenced,' the civil rights organisation said in a statement on its website. The rally is set to demand the immediate release of David Huerta, a union leader who it said 'was unjustly arrested and is still being held by the government, and all unjustly detained individuals'. But the political rhetoric over the protests has not cooled. Trump's 'border czar' Tom Homan told Fox News early Monday that Ice 'took a lot of bad people off the street'. 'We arrested a sexual predator, we arrested gang members, we arrested somebody that had an armed robbery conviction,' Homan said, without providing specifics. 'We made LA safer … but you're not hearing any of this. All you're hearing is rhetoric about Ice being racist, Ice being Nazis and terrorists – and Governor [Gavin] Newsom feeds that, just like [Democratic US House minority leader] Hakeem Jeffries says he's going to unmask Ice agents. 'We're not going to stop.' Homan also told NBC News that more raids are coming. 'I'm telling you what – we're going to keep enforcing law every day in LA,' he said. 'Every day in LA, we're going to enforce immigration law. I don't care if they like it or not.' The tensions between elected state and local officials and the federal government showed signs of escalating further after Newsom said he planned to sue the federal government and dared Trump to arrest him. In an interview on MSNBC, Newsom said the lawsuit would challenge Trump's federalizing of the California national guard without the state's consent. 'Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight,' Newsom told the outlet. 'He's exacerbated the conditions. He's, you know, lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the national guard – an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' Federal law, he said, 'specifically notes they had to coordinate with the governor of the state. 'They never coordinated with the governor of the state.' On Fox News, Newsom said Trump is 'reckless and immoral, and he's taken the illegal and unconstitutional act of federalizing the national guard and putting lives at risk'. Newsom added that he is confident that California's legal challenge would succeed.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's vision for a twin-engine F-55 fighter jet faces reality check
WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's vision of a new, twin-engine version of Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet may need to be scaled back due to cost and engineering realities, according to two people familiar with the matter. Speaking in Doha last month, Trump said the new "F-55" would feature "two engines and a super upgrade on the F-35." However, there is a caveat, with Trump saying, "if we get the right price." Trump was not shown a twin-engine redesign of the F-35, the two sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. Developing such a jet would require an extensive overhaul, running into billions of dollars and taking years to complete, the sources said. Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab had briefed Trump on a possible upgrade to the F-35 during multiple meetings before the Doha event, the people said. The proposal included just one "advanced" engine, a redesigned nose and forward fuselage, and a new sensor suite. Trump's reference to the "F-55" - the designator of the jet - caught officials and industry insiders off guard, particularly the mention of twin engines, a feature Trump has said he prefers for safety in case one engine fails. Lockheed is exploring the development of two new fighter jet variations, according to industry experts and the two sources. The proposed F-55 emerges against a backdrop of intensifying global competition in military aviation. China continues rapid development of its J-36 and J-50 stealth fighters, while Russia advances its Su-57 program despite economic constraints. After Doha, Lockheed acknowledged Trump's comments with measured enthusiasm, stating, "We thank President Trump for his support of the F-35 and F-22 and will continue to work closely with the Administration to realize its vision for air dominance." A Wall Street analyst tracking what might replace Lockheed Martin's (LMT.N), opens new tab F-35, said "it sounds like Trump has asked DoD to consider a twin-engine variant of the F-35 'if we get the right price,'" according to a note from TD Cowen. Shifting the F-55 to two engines would initiate a costly and lengthy redesign of the F-35's airframe - and while it would make the jet fast, it would delay production by years, industry experts and one of the people said. Lockheed CEO James Taiclet had told investors in an April call that the company was exploring a "fifth-generation-plus" fighter concept that would apply technologies developed for its unsuccessful F-47 bid to enhance the F-35 platform. These new technologies would make it much harder to export the F-55, the people said, adding that they are still highly controlled. "We're basically going to take the chassis and turn it into a Ferrari," Taiclet told analysts in April, claiming such an approach could deliver 80% of next-generation capability at half the cost. Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab beat out Lockheed to win the contract for Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), now named the F-47 which will be America's first sixth-generation fighter and intended to replace Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor. Because Lockheed lost the NGAD competition it is able to leverage its production plans for new jets. Lockheed had production spaces already lined up, the people said, and the president was made aware the company was poised to move ahead. "Lockheed is much further along than he realized," one of the people said. The timing of the F-55 announcement raises questions about how it fits into existing defense procurement plans and budgets. The Pentagon is already managing multiple high-cost aviation programs, including the ongoing F-35 program, the new F-47 development, and potentially the Navy's next generation carrier-based fighter jet - F/A-XX. For Lockheed Martin, the F-55 concept represents a critical opportunity to maintain relevance in the high-end fighter market after significant setbacks in next-generation competitions. Boeing's NGAD, which was just awarded and therefore is not in mass production yet, is expected to eclipse the F-22's capabilities, and so would F-55, the person said, making it a formidable fighter jet.
