British paratroopers parachute onto Swedish island as part of NATO exercise preparing to defend Europe from Russia... and are asked to show their PASSPORTS
Soldiers were carrying out exercises in Sweden as part of wider Swift Defense 25 NATO drills aimed at preparing for the possibility of global conflict.
Drills including seizing a 'Tactical Landing Zone' from Swedish defenders, landing planes and parachuting onto the strategic Baltic island of Gotland.
Dozens of troops from the British Parachute Regiment were seen dropping from a Royal Air Force Airbus A400M in stunning video shot on Tuesday.
But as they landed, it was straight to Swedish passport control, as Britain is outside of the Schengen Area.
Lieutenant Colonel Chris Hitchens told local outlet Expressen: 'So I'm used to border control now. I did it in France last year, as well.'
'Sometimes you have a bit of a mental pause, you go through those motions and then I'll put my helmet back on and I'll go into the trees and we'll be back in a tactical scenario.'
British soldiers were met by officials and asked to produce passports after landing in Normandy for the 80th anniversary of D-Day last summer - provoking sharp rebuke from British politicians.
Some 320 British, Belgian and US paratroopers took part in the jump, descending into a historic D-Day drop zone to recreate the events of 1944.
But only the 250 British paras were required to show passports as the US soldiers jumped from within France and Belgium is part of the European Union.
The 250 British paratroopers took off from RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, before jumping into the drop zone near Sannerville to commemorate the airborne invasion 80 years ago.
Former cabinet minister David Jones told MailOnline at the time that France only had control of its own borders because of the arrival of similar British troops 80 years ago.
'They risked their lives to make France safe for bureaucracy,' he quipped.
Brigadier Mark Berry, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, told the Sun: 'It is something we haven't experienced before.
'But given the Royal welcome we have had from every other feature, it seems like a very small price to pay for coming to France.'
The British paras were cheered by hundreds of spectators who gathered at the drop zone around five miles from the sea.
British soldiers will have to present passports when landing in Europe.
Some 100 paratroopers were involved in the Swift Defense 25 drills on Tuesday.
Speaking after the exercises, one soldier told Expressen: 'It was a good, successful jump. So now we're going to make our way to the rally point.'
Swift Defense 25 is a U.S.-led exercise taking place between May 11 and May 31, 2025.
NATO allies are 'conducting near-simultaneous airborne and mobility aircraft operations, and multinational training across the High North and Baltic region to enhance collective defence readiness'.
Soldiers have practiced 'airbourne insertions' in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden, and carried out live fire drills, medical support operations and artillery training, supported by Allied mobility aircraft.
Swift Response 25 is the opening phase of the broader U.S.-led DEFENDER 25 exercise, designed to reinforce NATO's deterrence posture and demonstrate rapid deployment capability, NATO says.
'This is about global deterrence,' said General Christopher Donahue, Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe and Africa.
'Everything we demonstrate with our Allies and partners, we can replicate globally. DEFENDER gives us critical repetitions at scale for theatre logistics and warfighting.'
NATO says the coordinated jumps are 'made possible through the seamless integration of strategic and tactical airlift platforms' including the British A400M seen in MailOnline video, and the American C-17 Globemaster III.
Some 25,000 personnel from 29 Allied nations will take part in Swift Response 25, as part of DEFENDER 25.
'It validated NATO's ability to coordinate complex operations across multiple domains and geographies, reinforcing the Alliance's collective defence posture,' a statement said.
Sweden announced last year it would discuss with NATO leaders plans to ramp up the militarisation of the island of Gotland, deemed the most strategic location in the Baltic Sea.
Described by analysts and commentators as a 'giant aircraft carrier', Stockholm-administered Gotland lies just 120 miles off the coast of NATO's Baltic triad of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but also just 230 miles north of the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.
Its prime location offers huge advantages in the deployment and control of air and sea traffic in the Baltic Sea, and has been referenced regularly by military analysts and commentators in Russian media as a highly desirable target.
Sweden maintained a military presence on Gotland during the Cold War and the island at its peak housed up to 25,000 troops, but in 2005 it was almost completely demilitarised.
Now, with Sweden's accession to NATO complete, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said the prospect of re-arming Gotland was 'one obvious thing to be discussed with our new NATO allies' as part of a wider ramping up of military readiness in the Baltic.
'Everything to do with the Baltic is such an obvious candidate (for the deployment of military resources),' Kristersson told the FT in an interview last March.
'That goes in terms of presence on Gotland, but also in terms of surveillance, in terms of submarine capabilities.'
Russian military analyst and retired Navy Captain Vasily Dandykin told Russian newswire Sputnik that a remilitarisation of Gotland would be seen as a major problem in the halls of the Kremlin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
21 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Trump conveyed Putin's demand for more Ukrainian territory to Zelenskiy, source says
US president Donald Trump said on Saturday Ukraine should make a deal to end the war with Russia because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not", after hosting a summit where Vladimir Putin was reported to have demanded more Ukrainian land. In a subsequent briefing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a source familiar with the discussion cited Trump as saying the Russian leader had offered to freeze most front lines if Kyiv's forces ceded all of Donetsk, the industrial region that is one of Moscow's main targets. Advertisement Zelenskiy rejected the demand, the source said. Russia already controls a fifth of Ukraine, including about three-quarters of Donetsk province, which it first entered in 2014. Trump also said he had agreed with Putin that a peace deal should be sought without the prior ceasefire that Ukraine and its European allies, until now with US support, have demanded. Zelenskiy said he would meet Trump in Washington on Monday, while Kyiv's European allies welcomed Trump's efforts but vowed to back Ukraine and tighten sanctions on Russia. The source said European leaders had also been invited to attend Monday's talks. Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday, the first US-Russia summit since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, lasted just three hours. Advertisement "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump posted on Truth Social. His various comments on the meeting will be welcomed in Moscow, which says it wants a full settlement - not a pause - but that this will be complex because positions are "diametrically opposed". Russia's forces have been gradually advancing for months. The war - the deadliest in Europe for 80 years - has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts. Before the summit, Trump had said he would not be happy unless a ceasefire was agreed on. But afterwards he said that, after Monday's talks with Zelenskiy, "if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin". Advertisement Monday's talks will evoke memories of a meeting in the White House Oval Office in February, where Trump and Vice President JD Vance gave Zelenskiy a brutal public dressing-down. Zelenskiy said he was willing to meet Putin. But Putin signalled no movement in Russia's long-held positions on the war, and made no mention in public of meeting Zelenskiy. His aide Yuri Ushakov told the Russian state news agency TASS a three-way summit had not been discussed. In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Trump signalled that he and Putin had discussed land transfers and security guarantees for Ukraine, and had "largely agreed". Advertisement "I think we're pretty close to a deal," he said, adding: "Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say 'no'." Asked what he would advise Zelenskiy to do, Trump said: "Gotta make a deal." "Look, Russia is a very big power, and they're not," he said. Zelenskiy has consistently said he cannot concede territory without changes to Ukraine's constitution, and Kyiv sees Donetsk's "fortress cities" such as Sloviansk and Kramatorsk as a bulwark against Russian advances into even more regions. Advertisement Zelenskiy has also insisted on security guarantees for Kyiv, to deter Russia from invading again in the future. He said he and Trump had discussed "positive signals from the American side" on taking part, and that Ukraine needed a lasting peace, not "just another pause" between Russian invasions. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the most interesting developments of the summit concerned security guarantees - inspired by the transatlantic NATO alliance's Article 5. "The starting point of the proposal is the definition of a collective security clause that would allow Ukraine to benefit from the support of all its partners, including the USA, ready to take action in case it is attacked again," she said. Putin, who has hitherto opposed involving foreign ground forces, said he agreed with Trump that Ukraine's security must be "ensured". "I would like to hope that the understanding we have reached will allow us to get closer to that goal and open the way to peace in Ukraine," Putin told a briefing where neither leader took questions. "We expect that Kyiv and the European capitals ... will not attempt to disrupt the emerging progress..." For Putin, the very fact of sitting down with Trump represented a victory. He had been ostracised by Western leaders since the start of the war, and just a week earlier had faced a threat of new sanctions from Trump. Trump also spoke to European leaders after returning to Washington. Several stressed the need to keep pressure on Russia. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said an end to the war was closer than ever, thanks to Trump, but added: "... until (Putin) stops his barbaric assault, we will keep tightening the screws on his war machine with even more sanctions." A statement from European leaders said "Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees" and that no limits should be placed on its armed forces or right to seek NATO membership - key Russian demands. Some European politicians and commentators were scathing. "Putin got his red carpet treatment with Trump, while Trump got nothing. As feared: no ceasefire, no peace," Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to Washington, posted on X. "No real progress – a clear 1-0 for Putin – no new sanctions. For the Ukrainians: nothing. For Europe: deeply disappointing." Both Russia and Ukraine carried out overnight air attacks, a daily occurrence, while fighting raged on the front line. Trump told Fox he would postpone imposing tariffs on China for buying Russian oil, but that he might have to "think about it" in two or three weeks. He ended his remarks after the summit by telling Putin: "We'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon." "Next time in Moscow," a smiling Putin responded in English. Trump said he might "get a little heat on that one" but that he could "possibly see it happening".
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Farage adviser said UK would be better off if it had not fought Nazi Germany
An adviser used by Nigel Farage and others in Reform UK to boost their social media popularity has suggested that Britain would be better off had it stayed neutral in the second world war instead of fighting Nazi Germany. Jack Anderton, who ran Farage's hugely successful TikTok account before helping Luke Campbell become the Reform mayor of Hull and East Yorkshire, also said the UK should not support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. In a post on his personal blog about Britain's international standing, Anderton said that in a future world of 'meritocracy', the UK could 'regain' former colonies such as Australia, Canada and South Africa. He added that the UK should copy the policy of mass incarceration carried out by El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, widely condemned as an abuse of human rights. Anderton has never been employed by Reform but the 23-year-old established Farage on TikTok, where he now has 1.3m followers, before working closely on Campbell's election campaign. He remains a central part of Campbell's circle, and the mayor is known to have made efforts to get him on to his roster of staff, which have been thwarted because he cannot have political appointees. Anderton's personal blog, titled Britain Needs Change, includes an entry from last year about what he called 'a self-interested British foreign policy', arguing that the only conflict in the last century that was in the UK's interest was the Falklands war. 'Trillions of pounds of British taxes have been spent in foreign lands in the pursuit of 'democracy', 'human rights' and 'doing what is right',' the post said. 'More than a million British lives have been lost since WW1 in wars and battles that have never once been fought by British men, on this island.' Fighting in both the world wars ensured the UK was no longer a great power, he wrote: 'We impoverished ourselves for decades, we didn't finish paying the loans off to America until 2006. Our economy stagnated, we lost an empire, and we are pushed around by America. And Germany, a country we beat, has been richer than us since the 1970s. 'Alternative history is interesting; if Britain had not fought in WW1 and WW2, it would not have had to rely on America for economic support, and it would have had the independence to act accordingly. Britain could have developed India, Cyprus, Fiji, Malta, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, the Bahamas, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Ireland and New Zealand. In the coming meritocracy, perhaps Britain could regain some of these nations.' The same post also argues against providing support for Ukraine after Russia's invasion: 'We are sending billions of pounds (that we cannot afford) to prop up a country that we have no allegiance to. Russia is not our enemy, they have not attacked Britain.' Anderton calls for a shake-up of the Foreign Office so that all decisions are made purely on the basis of whether or not they benefit Britain: 'Instead, what we have are people who should be working for the UN or a charity rather than working in the British Foreign Office.' In another post from 2024, on crime, Anderton enthusiastically endorses the policies of Nayib Bukele, who has dramatically cut gang violence and wider crime through mass detentions that have put 2% of El Salvador's population in prison. 'Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures,' he wrote. 'I'd even argue the measures aren't that extraordinary and should be in place in times of normalcy. 'El Salvador is perhaps a lesson for those in Britain who wish to take back control of their country. Power works, and it is all that matters. State power when used effectively is basically omnipotent. The meritocracy will be established, criminals and corrupt officials will be jailed, immigration will drop to zero, houses will be built, and our citizens will once again feel proud of the country they call home.' Anderton was contacted for comment. Campbell's office referred the matter to Reform UK, who said Anderton was not employed by either the party or the mayor.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘The Left blacklisted me for criticising smug London Review of Books'
The founder of a literary magazine claims he has been blacklisted by the Left for criticising the London Review of Books (LRB) as 'smug'. Booklaunch, the UK's most widely distributed literary magazine, had previously given out tens of thousands of free copies of its publication with The Spectator and The New Statesman. But now Dr Stephen Games, its founder and editor, claims his independent literary magazine has been 'no-platformed' and 'cancelled' by The New Statesman under pressure from the LRB. Dr Games alleged the LRB 'poured poison in the ear of The New Statesman', causing it to sever its ties with Booklaunch. 'It's dirty and shabby and inexplicable that magazines that ought to be committed to free expression and plurality of expression should feel that Booklaunch is so threatening to them that they have to shut it out of existence,' he claimed. The New Statesman and the LRB have declined to comment on the row, and it remains unclear exactly why the relationship has soured. However, Dr Games believes it can be traced back to last summer's Issue 20 of Booklaunch, which carried an editorial that read: 'We used to worship at the LRB's altar. Not any longer.' The editorial went on: 'Something has happened at the LRB that makes one warier of its contributors and less confident about their judgments. The magazine's once unrivalled openness has been replaced by small-mindedness in which the rigour of proper argumentation is now accompanied by labelling, dog whistles and taunts. 'Fun for those who like that sort of thing; dishonourable if you hold the LRB to a higher account. So limited has the LRB become in what it will examine openly that it seems to be suffering from locked-in syndrome.' LRB coverage of Middle East criticised The editorial goes on to criticise the LRB for its coverage of the Middle East as 'uniformly one-sided', and compares it to Nazi 'propaganda', adding: 'Such a lack of balanced analysis does a disservice to the complex and deeply contested nature of the conflict... 'Der Stürmer [the Nazi propaganda tabloid] was similarly effective in its day: we often underrate propaganda as always crude and obvious; on the contrary, it can be intelligent, sophisticated, difficult for the ordinary reader to find fault with and attractive to read. Those who commission these essays are complicit... 'As it stands, its writing on the Middle East is reminiscent of the Inquisition – admit you're a heretic so we can burn you or deny it until we've tortured you to death.' The piece also accuses the LRB for endorsing 'the culture of the smug', with its 'side operation selling commercial fripperies, from branded tote bags to high-priced picnic blankets and umbrellas', and for having an array of writers hailing from 'upper class stock', citing Mary Wellesley, the daughter of the Marquess of Douro and Princess Antonia of Prussia, as an example. It also alleges the editorial team are 'ensconced in their Bloomsburian towers, away from the practical realities they critique and the divisions they promote'. Dr Games said the LRB also used to distribute Booklaunch, but claimed it terminated that arrangement following a misapprehension about Booklaunch allegedly telling an advertiser that it was part of the same stable as the LRB. Despite this, Booklaunch continued to have a positive relationship with its other distributors, The New Statesman and The Spectator, for around six years. 'Suddenly, and completely out of the blue, these two important media vehicles of the political Left [The New Statesman and the LRB] are acting in concert to squeeze us out,' Dr Games claimed. 'They must have a motive, but I can only guess what it might be. It looks to me like spiteful political cancelling.' 'Fine upstanding organs of the Left' Dr Games claimed it was 'very odd' that 'two major players should collude – which is what it looks like – to shut another player out of the market', describing Booklaunch as a 'minnow' by comparison. He said: 'It feels like the sort of thing that a cartel would do to prevent competition. 'It's an action which goes against what you would expect to be each magazine's commitment to free speech and free expression... they're both fine upstanding organs of the Left, and fine upstanding organs of the Left have recently been getting into the habit of, you know, cancelling people they don't like and no-platforming them. 'And this would seem to be an example of that.' The Telegraph has seen confirmation from The New Statesman that it planned to circulate Booklaunch in May, but that this never happened. The New World has since replaced The New Statesman as a distributor of Booklaunch.
