At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher
At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher | The Excerpt
On a special episode (first released on June 5, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Ukraine, Russia, defense spending and Trump's general disdain for the 70 plus year-old agreement are all on the table at this year's NATO Summit. Max Boot, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, shares his expert analysis on the issues at hand.
Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Dana Taylor:
Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. The 2025 NATO summit will be held at the World Forum in The Hague from the 24th to 26th of June. Among the topics of discussion will be defense spending, strengthening the alliance, support for Ukraine and bolstering defense capabilities. With the summit fast approaching, how might European powers fill the leadership and aid vacuum left by the US as the Trump administration's appetite for foreign conflicts dissipates? Here to share his insights on what to watch out for leading up to and coming out of the summit is historian and author Max Boot, senior fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thanks for joining me Max.
Max Boot:
Good to be with you.
Dana Taylor:
First, give us a very brief history of NATO, how it came to be and its overall aims.
Max Boot:
Well, NATO was created in the late 1940s as a way for the United States and Canada to work together with our European allies to counter the Soviet threat to Western Europe. And it's become the most successful alliance in world history. It's still together after all those years, and it has been throughout its history, the linchpin of security and stability in Europe.
And after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO expanded to the east to take in the newly liberated former Soviet satellite states and republics, including the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and others. And it has played a massive role in stabilizing that part of Europe and preventing Russian aggression.
I think it's very significant, for example, that Vladimir Putin is attacking Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, but he is not attacking the Baltic Republics or Poland, which are members of NATO. I think that's a demonstration of the importance of NATO and the deterrent effect that it has in action.
At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher
Ukraine, Russia, defense spending and a general lack of U.S. enthusiasm are all on the table at this year's NATO Summit.
Dana Taylor:
Max, are we seeing a return to the United States pre-World War II diplomatic isolationism? What's the historical significance of President Donald Trump's threatening to change the US's participation in NATO?
Max Boot:
Well, it's very concerning to see a US president who labels his foreign policy America First because of course, that was the label used by Charles Lindbergh and other isolationists in the pre-World War II period, and their philosophy was completely repudiated and discredited by the outbreak of World War II. In similar fashion by the way, President Trump is not only the most unilateralist or isolationist US president since the 1930s, he's also the most protectionist and the Greatest Generation saw the consequences not only of isolationism, but also protectionism because protectionism like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930 was widely seen as one of the influences that made the Great Depression as devastating as it was and helped to lead the world to war.
And so after World War II, the Greatest Generation in the United States and our European allies vowed never again, and they instituted policies of pursuing security alliances like NATO, of pursuing free trade, of trying to promote and defend liberal democratic institutions around the world, all in order to avoid the outbreak of World War III. And those policies have been stunningly successful in keeping the peace and expanding the global sphere of prosperity and democracy. And now they're, all of those basic tenets of US foreign policy for more than 70 years are under assault by President Trump, who doesn't seem to believe in any of those ideas that have served America so well for so long.
Dana Taylor:
During an ABC News interview with President Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, he said that Russia's concern over the Eastern enlargement of NATO was fair. He also reiterated that the US does not support Ukraine's entry into the alliance. Is this now a moot point heading into the summit and is the US the lone holdout?
Max Boot:
It is a moot point. NATO is certainly not going to extend an invitation to Ukraine at this summit or any summit anytime soon. On this issue the US is not the lone holdout. Germany among others has also been very reluctant. And this is not just the Trump administration, this is in fairness also the Biden administration was also not here to extend NATO membership to Ukraine. That's not a crazy position because obviously if NATO were to extend an invitation to Ukraine right now, there's a real concern that NATO would become embroiled into war against Russia. But there's a lot that the European countries and the United States can still do to help Ukraine without the NATO membership, including helping Ukraine to become a member of the European Union, and also ensuring that the pipeline of weaponry from the United States to the Ukraine continues, that pipeline is almost dry right now.
But one point I would make about NATO, and I think very important to keep in mind, Vladimir Putin has used the boogeyman of Ukraine and NATO as an excuse for his unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. And that is to quote a previous US president, that is just malarkey because it's been evident that Ukraine was never going to join NATO anytime soon. And NATO is, in any case, a defensive alliance. It's not a threat against Russia. And by the way, if Putin's primary concern is to avoid the expansion of NATO, his invasion of Ukraine had the opposite consequence because it led Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which they had not done in the past, but now they have done because they are so afraid of Russian aggression. So that rationale that the Kremlin has advanced for its war against Ukraine doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, in part because everybody knows, and everybody knew even before the invasion that Ukraine was not going to be admitted to NATO anytime soon.
Dana Taylor:
Leading up to the NATO summit were peace talks that took place in Turkey on June 2nd. As of this recording, Russia is still refusing to back down on its demands that Ukraine give up large swaths of territory and agree to limit the size of its army. This is according to a memo reported by Russian media. What might move the needle in this negotiation?
Max Boot:
That's a great question because clearly at this point, Putin has no interest in negotiating. President Zelensky and Ukraine have agreed to a thirty-day unconditional ceasefire as demanded by President Trump. Putin has consistently rejected that demand and made clear that his war of aggression will continue until Russia achieves its war aims, which include annexing a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, changing regimes in Kiev, putting limits on the Ukrainian armed forces, and basically turning Ukraine into a quasi-colony of the Kremlin. And those are all conditions that Ukraine will fight to the death in order not to agree to. So clearly, as long as Putin sticks to those hardline demands, negotiations over a peace settlement are not going to go anywhere. And so far they haven't gone anywhere.
In terms of your question, which is I think the right one to ask, what could possibly move the needle? I think it's sending clear signals that Putin will not be able to defeat Ukraine, that he will not win this war because right now he thinks he can still advance. He thinks that Trump will cut off Ukraine. He thinks that the Russian armed forces can still make major gains. I think it's imperative to signal to Russia that there is no battlefield solution for Russia here, that there is no way they will achieve their battlefield objectives.
And how do we do that? Well, there are several ways of doing it. One way at the moment, the European countries have about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. They should turn those over to Ukraine immediately so Ukraine can use that money to finance its own arms industry and build the weapons it needs to defend itself indefinitely. The US should also give or sell weapons to Ukraine and crack down on sanctions on Russia as called for in a Senate bill. All of these things combined together would send a very clear message to Putin, you're not going to win this war. You have to compromise. You have to negotiate in earnest. But so far, that message has not gone out.
President Trump has said several times over the last couple of months that he's unhappy about Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian civilians, but he is not backing up those words with actions. And unless we do something to increase the cost to Russia, its aggression, that aggression will continue.
Dana Taylor:
President Trump promised, of course, to end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office. After initially siding with Russia, Trump recently expressed his frustrations, as he said, saying Putin is gone, quote absolutely crazy unquote, with this massive ongoing military strikes against Ukraine. What's been the effect of Trump's mixed messages regarding Putin on a relationship with our NATO allies?
Max Boot:
I think this is very worrisome for our NATO allies because they want the US to take a tough line against Russian aggression as we were doing under President Biden. So they're very concerned about the mixed signals from Washington, and those mixed signals undercut any impetus for ending the war. I mean, if you want to talk about why Trump hasn't had any success in peacemaking, even though he promised that he would end the war in a day, a lot of the reason why he's not being more successful is he's not doing anything to put pressure on Russia. He's sending signals to the Kremlin that he is more interested in doing business with Russia than he is in forcing Russia to end its war of aggression. And so as long as that continues, it'll be very hard to bring this war to a close.
But this is definitely a huge transatlantic divide because our European allies see this Russian invasion of Ukraine as an existential threat to themselves. They are very, very worried that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, Putin will continue moving further west, that the Baltic Republics or Poland, which are both NATO members, could be next, and an attack on those countries could trigger a massive global war. So the European countries want to hold the line against Russian aggression in Ukraine, and Trump seems to be at best ambivalent in terms of the war. And having the US and Europe at cross purposes, the only person that helps is Vladimir Putin.
Dana Taylor:
I want to turn now to the funding of NATO. President Trump has pushed for NATO members to pay their quote fair share, 2% of each nation's GDP on NATO defense. How have other nations responded so far?
Max Boot:
Well, actually, most NATO countries are now spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. But Trump is moving the goalposts. He's now demanding that NATO countries spend 5% of GDP on defense, which by the way is more than the US itself spends. We spend about 3.5% of GDP on defense. So I don't think this is a realistic demand, but I think the European countries are recognizing that even 2% is insufficient, and they're, I think, going to set 3% or 3.5% as a benchmark for their defense spending. And then they're going to do some creative accounting and claim that they're getting up to 5% by counting infrastructure investment as part of their quote unquote national defense budget.
But I think clearly there is a recognition in Europe that they need to spend more on defense. They are spending more on defense. And the fact that we now have a government in Germany that is willing to do deficit spending, which is willing to take on debt in order to expand its defense budget, that's a big deal. That's a huge amount of money potentially that Germany's going to be able to pour into its defense budget. It's going to vastly enhance European defense capabilities.
We see the UK just came out with a defense white paper that calls for an expansion of the British military and British defense spending. I think this is pretty universal across Europe. All these countries recognize that there is a threat, but it's going to take them a while to scale up spending. And I think the primary impetus is not so much President Trump's browbeating, it's the threat that they see from Putin, and they're concerned that they're going to be abandoned by the United States, so they're going to have to fend for themselves.
Dana Taylor:
In terms of the US remaining in NATO, some Americans may be joining Trump in asking, what's in it for us? So what's in it for us?
Max Boot:
Well, what's in it for us is a more prosperous, stable and mutually beneficial world order. I mean, Europe is one of our largest trade partners. It's a massive continent of 350 million people. We do a tremendous amount of business with them. We share common values with them. These are all liberal democracies. So it's imperative that we stand with our allies as we have done since 1945 to ensure peace and stability in Europe.
The alternative is too horrific to contemplate. We're already getting a small taste of it in Ukraine with the most serious war of aggression that Europe has seen since 1945. We don't want to see the rest of the continent becoming embroiled in war. And the most effective way to avoid conflict is to deter aggressors. And nothing deters aggression more than NATO. We've seen that over more than 70 years. NATO has keep the peace, that's very much to America's benefit, as well as to Europe's benefit, and indeed, the entire world's benefit.
Dana Taylor:
And finally, Max, as I mentioned, this year's summit will be held in The Hague, the city synonymous with international justice. What's at stake with this year's talks?
Max Boot:
Well, I think there's a lot at stake we've talked about, the divisions between the US and Europe on how to deal with Ukraine. There also, although this is not a NATO issue per se, the fact that President Trump has declared trade wars on our allies is also something that strains ties and makes it harder for us to cooperate on defense and strategic matters when we're at war with each other on tariffs. And again, this is not going to be something that's going to be resolved at the NATO summit, but I think it is imperative for the Trump administration to back off its tariff threats and to reach accommodations with our European allies.
I think there's a general sense of that what's at stake is the future of the Transatlantic alliance. Do we have enough in common anymore between the US and Europe to keep this alliance together? And I would emphatically argue yes, but nobody knows if Trump is convinced of that, because in the past and even now, he's been much more critical of US allies than he has been of US enemies. He continues to denounce the Europeans as freeloaders and people who are taking advantage of us. None of that is true, but it puts a massive strain on the alliance, and I think there'll be an opportunity to try to heal some of that strain at the NATO summit.
Dana Taylor:
Max, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt.
Max Boot:
Thanks for having me.
Dana Taylor:
Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘They are in shock': Indian students fear Trump has ended their American dream
For weeks, Subash Devatwal's phone has not stopped ringing. Some of the calls have been from distressed students, at other times it is their panicked parents, but all have the same question – is their dream of studying in the US still possible? Devatwal runs an education consultancy in Ahmedabad, the main city in the Indian state of Gujarat. It is one of thousands of such organisations that exist across the country, helping Indian students achieve what many consider to be the ultimate symbol of success: getting into an American university. It has long been a booming business for Devatwal. Families in India will often invest their entire life savings to send their children to study in the US and last year there were more than 330,000 Indians enrolled at American universities, more than any other foreign nationality, overtaking Chinese students in numbers for the first time in years. But this year the situation looks drastically different. As Donald Trump's administration has taken aim at international students – first implementing draconian screening measures over political views and then last week ordering all US embassies globally to indefinitely pause all student visa interviews – many Indian students and their families have been left in limbo. Trump's unilateral decision to block Harvard University from admitting international students, which was later blocked by the courts, also caused widespread panic and stoked fears that foreign students at other universities could get caught in the president's crosshairs. 'The students are in shock. Most of them spend several years preparing to study in the US,' said Devatwal. He said many of his clients were now hesitant to pursue a US degree, given the high levels of turmoil and uncertainty following the Trump administration's new policies. Indian students can expect to pay between $40,000 to $80,000 (£29,500 to £59,000) a year on tuition alone to study in the US. In previous years, Devatwal's organisation sent more than 100 students to American universities but this year he said the number had dropped to about 10. Instead, families were shifting their focus to the UK and other European countries. A recent analysis by the Hindu newspaper estimated a 28% drop in Indian students going to the US in 2025. 'Families contribute their savings, take out loans from banks and borrow from relatives, all in the hope that the student will secure a good job abroad, repay the debt, and build a promising future,' said Devatwal. 'In such uncertain circumstances, parents are understandably reluctant to let their children take such a risky path.' Brijesh Patel, 50, a textile trader in Surat, Gujarat, said he had been saving money for over a decade to make sure his son could go to a US university, including selling his wife's jewellery and borrowing money from relatives. 'Everyone in the family wanted our son to go to the US for his studies and make something good of his life,' said Patel. His 21-year-old son, who he asked not to be named for fear of retribution by the US authorities, had secured a place at two American universities for his master's degree and Patel had already paid 700,000 rupees (£6,000) to consultancies who helped with the applications. But amid the turmoil under Trump, Patel said his son was being advised not to even apply for his student visa, due to the uncertainty and high probability of rejection. 'We simply can't take that risk. If our son goes now and something goes wrong, we won't be able to save that kind of money again,' he said. However, Patel said he was not willing to give up on the family dream just yet. 'I am an optimist, and my son is willing to wait a year,' he said. 'We're hoping that things improve by then. It's not just my son who will be living the American dream, it's all of us: my wife, our relatives and our neighbours. I've struggled my whole life – I don't want my son to face the same struggles here in India.' The fear among prospective and current students was palpable. Several Indian students studying in the US declined to speak to the Guardian, fearing it could jeopardise their visas. In India, a student selected in December to be one of this year's Fulbright-Nehru doctoral fellows – a highly competitive scholarship that pays for the brightest students to study abroad at US universities as part of their PhD thesis – said the applications of their entire cohort had recently been demoted back to 'semi-finalists'. The student, who asked to remain anonymous over fears it would affect their application, said they had invitation letters from top Ivy League universities for the fellowship, which is considered one of the most prestigious scholarships in the US, but now everything was up in the air. 'We are supposed to start in October and our orientation was scheduled for May, all the flights and hotels were even booked, but then it all got cancelled. Now we've been informed all our applications are under review by the Trump administration,' said the student. They said it had caused 'huge panic and anxiety' among those accepted. 'I know a lot of people are going back through their social media, deleting things and doing a lot of self-censoring.' Piyush Bhartiya, a co-founder of the educational technology company AdmitKard, said many parents who had been set on sending their children to the US were rethinking their plans. He cited one example of a student who had been admitted to New York University for the coming year but was instead planning to go to the London School of Economics after the US visa interviews were paused. Bhartiya said Indian students primarily went to the US to study Stem subjects – science, technology, engineering and maths – and so the focus had shifted to other countries strong in these areas. 'Germany is the main country where students are shifting to for Stem subjects,' he said. 'Other countries like Ireland, France, the Netherlands, which are also gaining substantial interest in the students. At the undergraduate level, the Middle East has also seen a lot of gain in interest given parents feel that it is close by and safer and given the current political environment they may want their kids closer to the home.' Among the Indian students forced to abandon their plans is Nihar Gokhale, 36. He had a fully funded offer for a PhD at a private university in Massachusetts, but recently received a letter saying the funding was being withdrawn, as the university faced issues under the Trump administration. 'It was quite shocking. I spoke to people at the university, and they admitted it was an exceptional situation for them too,' said Gokhale. Without the funding, the US was financially 'out of the question' and he said he had an offer from the UK he now intended to take up. 'For at least the next three or four years, I'm not considering the US at all,' he said. • This article was amended on 4 June 2025 to correct a conversion error. An earlier version said that 700,000 rupees was £68,000 instead of saying £6,000.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
