This is not the answer to the threats Britain faces
Battles for territory and for political power beyond Ukraine result in death and despair for millions. Climate change, deepening inequality, poverty, famine and the displacement of populations generate humanitarian agendas that a country such as ours should respond to. They also constitute threats to us. We should not dispense with foreign aid to bolster a narrow perception of what we need to defend against. But what about cost?
As Dan Sabbagh asks (Spending constrains Labour's defence review – but no harm in gradualism, 2 June), even if we accept the need to strengthen the readiness of our conventional forces, why do we need to spend more on nuclear weapons?
The existing nuclear deterrent is dreadful in and of itself. Even if we are uncertain about the US's resolve, the UK and France could unleash mass destruction with what they have now. Surely we cannot see a scenario when we would need to, or choose to, deploy nuclear weapons on the battlefield?
We should redirect the funding for more nuclear weapons in the defence review to overseas aid. It's not enough, but it does signal that we are not being diverted in our commitment to those in the most dire need across the world by the agenda of Vladimir Putin and his coterie in Moscow. Neil SmallLeeds
Traditionally, we have seen our armed forces as being necessary to protect Britain's territorial integrity and safeguard our way of life and independence. As Dan Sabbagh points out, our territorial integrity is not under threat. As for our way of life and independence, there is no threat to this from Vladimir Putin: he does not appear to have any interest in the way we conduct our internal affairs, and even if he did, there is not much leverage he could apply. The same cannot be said for the American administration, which can exercise enormous leverage over our government and has distinct ideas about how it would like to influence our internal affairs, made painfully clear by JD Vance in his Munich speech earlier this year.
Part of this leverage resides in the nature of the dependence of British armed forces on American equipment and support. Under the defence review, this degree of dependence will remain – we will be renewing our nuclear deterrent (missiles provided by the US) and probably buying more equipment from the US. Should we not be looking at decoupling ourselves from the US rather than exposing ourselves to pressure from a potentially malevolent government? Richard HendersonBristol
One must presume that our 'battle-ready' prime minister did not read your exemplary interview with Neta Crawford last week (How the US became the biggest military emitter and stopped everyone finding out, 30 May), outlining her analysis of the true costs to the biosphere of an escalation in military spending. Or does not care.
The economics aside, the political choices before Keir Starmer and all global leaders in this Anthropocene twilight of 'ecological collapse' ('Half the tree of life': ecologists' horror as nature reserves are emptied of insects, 3 June) are exquisitely stark. Either they devote their full energies to the climate emergency and so genuinely lead in attempting to heal an international system's self-destructive path to planetary annihilation. Or they reprise the last cold-war, nuclear-tipped, military confrontation of the 1980s and so, this time, seal it. Which is it to be? Dr Mark Levene New Radnor, Powys
The prime minister proposes to increase conventional defence spending and bring back a form of national service to 'make Britain safer'. But documents in the House of Commons library state that we will be spending £118bn between 2023 and 2033 on our nuclear deterrent. If nuclear weapons aren't keeping us safe, what is the point of them? Why not spend this huge sum on social care, housing and other similar projects that would benefit the whole community. Most people would then be happy to let the prime minister have his soldiers, while life improves for everyone else. Peter Loschi Oldham, Greater Manchester
Zoe Williams' description of sexual violence in war was a hard read, but a timely reminder, given the bullish talk flowing from the strategic defence review, that war is always an atrocity in one form or another (The story of war is one of kidnapping, slavery and rape. And what we talk about is strategy and territory, 2 June). The second world war ended with the atrocities of atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I support strengthening our defences to keep Britain safe from attack, but if nuclear weapons are part of that, let us remember that they are a deterrent, not an opportunity.Anne ConstantineGreat Gransden, Cambridgeshire
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump tells Fox News that Zelensky has ‘got to make a deal' with Putin after Alaska summit
President Donald Trump insists Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has 'gotta make a deal' with Russian President Vladimir Putin following his Alaska summit with the Russian leader. After the nearly three-hour meeting between the two leaders, with no agreement having been reached on the future of the war in Ukraine, Trump appeared for an interview on Fox News ' 'Hannity'. Host Sean Hannity asked what advice he would give to Zelensky and Trump replied: 'Make the deal. Gotta make a deal.' 'Russia's a very big power. And they're not,' Trump said, adding that the U.S. has supplied Ukraine with weaponry. Hours earlier, during a joint statement with Putin, where neither took questions, the U.S. president admitted that while 'great progress' had been made, he emphasized: 'There's no deal until there's a deal.' Trump noted that he planned to call Zelensky and NATO members following the meeting. On Fox News, Hannity asked Trump about next steps, alluding to the U.S. president's previous comments about a possible meeting between Putin and Zelensky. 'I don't know if I trust the two of them in a room alone together. I think it would be better if you are there,' the Fox News host suggested. Trump agreed: 'They both want me there, and I'll be there. You got to see it out.' What exactly was discussed in the high stakes meeting and what was agreed remains a mystery. Both Putin and Trump used vague terms to describe the meeting and refused to take questions from reporters. Still, both men flattered one another in front of the world's cameras. The Russian president called the United States a 'dear neighbor.' He also repeated one of Trump's claims: the war in Ukraine would not have started if Trump had remained in office after the 2020 election. Trump touted his 'fantastic relationship' with his Russian counterpart and branded the meeting 'extremely productive.' The U.S. president continued laying on the praise for Putin during his interview with Hannity. 'I think we've agreed on a lot, and I can tell you, the meeting was a very warm meeting,' he said. Referring to Putin, he continued: 'He's a strong guy, he's tough as hell and all of that, but the meeting was a very warm meeting between two very important countries, and it's very good when they get along.' Earlier in the day, Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin, greeting him warmly before they jumped into his U.S. limousine, dubbed 'The Beast.' At the end of their joint speech to press Putin suggested the pair next meet on his home turf: Moscow. 'That's an interesting one, I'll get a little heat on that one,' Trump replied. 'But I could see it possibly happening.' Following the summit, some pundits slammed Trump's performance. A Fox News host said he was 'steamrolled' by Putin while former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Trump's warm welcome of the Russian leader dealt a 'big victory' for Putin. Despite the flack, Trump told Hannity he believed on a scale of one to 10, the meeting was a 10. 'It's good when two big powers get along, especially when they're nuclear powers. We're number one, they're number two in the world. And it's a big deal. That's a big deal,' the U.S. president said.
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The handshake that shook the world: Why Putin left grinning and Trump insisted he'd stood firm after three-hour meeting to change history
In the end, the 'Don and Vlad' show ended without a big finale. After nearly three hours behind closed doors in Alaska, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin emerged like heavyweight prize fighters who had fought each other to a standstill. They proceeded to talk briefly to the millions watching with bated breath on TV but revealed no specifics of what they had discussed. The only conclusion for those in Kyiv, and in European capitals, was that the encounter had ended in stalemate, and there would be no immediate ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Putin spoke first, and seemed the happier, jauntily inviting Trump to Moscow for another meeting. He and Trump had reached an 'understanding,' Putin said, as he ominously warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress.' Trump called the summit 'very productive' but said there were a 'couple of quite big' issues not agreed. He later seemed more optimistic and rated it '10/10.' For Trump, it was undoubtedly a historic achievement to get Putin to the negotiating table at all, and a starting point for what may be a long road to peace, and a Nobel Prize. But for Kremlin watchers it looked like Putin had achieved his two main goals - a return to the world stage, and buying more time to make military gains in Ukraine. By agreeing to the meeting Putin avoided further impending U.S. sanctions, and by then not agreeing to a ceasefire he kicked the diplomatic can down the road. Putin's troops are currently advancing in Ukraine, so it was always going to be to his advantage to delay Trump's demands for a ceasefire, and seek a better deal later. Indeed, on the eve of the summit Putin bombed Ukraine yet again with a ballistic missile, and his troops advanced six miles towards the eastern town of Dobropillia. The starting points for the summit had never been entirely promising. Putin wanted Ukrainian territory but the extent of his demands had been shrouded in uncertainty, due in part to apparent previous misunderstandings with Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff. Trump was prepared for 'land swaps' but had agreed not to make any commitments without the approval of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not invited. Zelensky wanted a ceasefire before any discussion on territory. Meanwhile, European leaders wanted post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. And Putin wanted Ukraine membership of NATO ruled out, which was a diplomatic non-starter. However, for Ukraine, and its European allies, there was some relief that no harm was done in Alaska. They had feared a repetition of Yalta, the 1945 conference where Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin decided the fate of European counties without them being represented at the negotiating table. Russia occupies about one fifth of Ukraine, including large parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, areas rich in coal and gas, and other minerals like lithium. With Zelensky not in Alaska, he and European allies were concerned about a 'Yalta 2,' with Trump handing over parts of Ukraine's territory to Putin. Trump's detractors had also cast him the role of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938. Last month, he lamented: 'We get a lot of bulls*** thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.'" Chamberlain gave the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia to Hitler and then infamously claimed that he had achieved 'peace for our time.' The following year, the world was at war. Trump showed in Alaska that he is no Chamberlain. Instead, he is a man with a strong dislike for people trying to pull the wool over his eyes. Last month, he lamented: 'We get a lot of bulls*** thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' There was also no repeat of the 2018 meeting in Helsinki when Trump was widely criticized for siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies, denying that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. In Alaska, there was also no repeat of the 2018 meeting in Helsinki when Trump was widely criticized for siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies, denying that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. Unlike Helsinki, Trump took the decision not to meet Putin alone this time. Instead, he brought into the room a diplomatic 'good cop' and 'bad cop'. The 'good cop' was Witkoff, who has built up a rapport with Putin over several long meetings. The 'bad cop' was Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has in the past savaged Putin as a 'thug and gangster.' In one sense, just being in Alaska was a victory for Putin, a man responsible for launching the largest land war in Europe since 1945. He is, officially, an internationally wanted war crimes suspect after a warrant for his arrest was issued by the International Criminal Court in March 2023. The summit allowed him to become the first Russian leader to set foot in Alaska since Tsar Alexander II sold it to the U.S. in 1867. Trump effectively brought him in from his three-and-a-half year exile as a global pariah. Despite the challenges the summit had begun in a hopeful atmosphere. On the tarmac at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Trump's Air Force One sat next to Putin's so-called 'Flying Kremlin,' an Ilyushin Il-96-300PU aircraft. Trump disembarked first and played the perfect host, standing at the end of an ultra-long red carpet as Putin descended the steps and walked briskly toward him. The American leader applauded Putin on his walk and then deployed what body language experts call a 'clasp and yank' handshake - gripping Putin's hand and pulling the Russian toward him. Putin resisted the power play and stood his ground as they locked hands for 20 seconds, with Putin telling Trump he had come to 'help.' As they walked up another stretch of red carpet, past two parked U.S. jets, there were pats on the back and a few pleasantries. Putin paused and gazed up as there was a flyby of a B2 bomber and four F-35 fighter jets. He looked impressed. The two men then stood on a stage over the words 'Alaska 2025.' Trump's carefully choreographed welcome was upended when an American reporter yelled at Putin: 'Will you stop killing civilians? Putin shrugged pointed to his ear as if couldn't hear. They then headed toward Trumps armored limousine, 'The Beast.' Putin appeared to chuckle as he got in the back with Trump for what was likely to be their only one-on-one encounter. After they arrived at the venue for the meeting they sat with advisers for photographs. Putin again appeared rattled as a reporter yelled: 'Mr Putin, will you commit to a ceasefire? Will you commit to not killing any more civilians?' He cupped his hands to his face and appeared to mouth 'I can't hear you.' Ahead of the meeting, Putin sought to smooth Trump's ego, praising his 'energetic and sincere efforts to end the conflict.' On top of that, he offered a carrot, that a deal could lead to talks on 'strategic offensive arms control,' a clear reference to a potential nuclear arms deal. Russia and the United States have by far the biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world. The last remaining pillar of nuclear arms control between the two countries is the New Strategic Arms Reduction (New START) treaty, which expires in February. But, as Trump found out, pushing Putin into a ceasefire will be an uphill struggle. Not all wars end at the negotiating table. According to research by the Hague Center for Strategic Studies between 1946 and 2005 only 30 percent of wars between countries ended in a ceasefire, and only 16 percent in a peace agreement. It found 21 percent ended in a decisive victory, and 33 percent in some other form like a stalemate or ongoing low-level conflict. When there was a negotiated settlement in 50 percent of hose cases the counties were at war again within five years.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Now we know just how useless Trump's Alaska summit really was ... to everyone but Vladimir Putin
Before President Trump's tête-à-tête with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, press secretary Karoline Leavitt was already downplaying the stakes. Wednesday morning, she described the summit as a 'listening exercise' — which is, frankly, a relief. After all, when you're a time-poor autocrat juggling a Monday invasion, a midweek labor camp opening, and a weekend of jailing political opponents, it's easy to feel unheard. Sure, Putin invaded Ukraine. And yes, countless people have suffered ... on both sides. But perhaps — and I think we can all agree this is the real tragedy here — no one has taken the time to validate his feelings. So it was heartening, then, to see Vlad and Donald touch down on Alaskan soil midday Friday and greet each other with warmth: a smattering of applause from Trump, a weirdly prolonged handshake, and then the two friends sliding into the same back seat — a notable break in protocol — for the drive to their meeting. Waiting for them on the tarmac was a stage emblazoned 'ALASKA 2025,' festival-style, primed for the photo-op. Meanwhile, at least seven civilians had just been killed in Ukraine by Russian missiles. When they emerged again for a post-meeting press conference, earlier than expected, it was clear a good time had been had by all. They had agreed on 'most points,' said Trump. He was going to 'call up NATO,' he added, saying, 'I will, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today's meeting." Very good of him. They should meet, Putin added, but 'next time in Moscow.' Trump laughed at that point, calling his suggestion 'an interesting one.' 'I'll get a little heat on that one,' the American president added, 'but I could see it possibly happening.' The two men leaned in toward each other and smiled, like they were sharing an inside joke. The bottom line: a nebulous amount of 'progress' made, some 'headway,' stuff to talk about, but 'there's no deal until there's a deal.' Ah well. Maybe Vlad just needs more time. I'm pretty sure, however, that he already got what he came for — and that the joke is on America. Contrast the kid-gloves treatment of everybody's favorite dictator with the treatment of Volodymyr Zelensky a few months ago, when he visited the White House. Indeed, it is hard to recall another Oval Office meeting where an allied head of state was treated quite like the Ukrainian president was in February. Lest we forget, Zelensky had arrived to discuss a minerals deal that might have bolstered his country's three-year fight for survival. He left having been publicly chided, mid-meeting, for 'disrespect' and insufficient gratitude. Trump accused him of 'gambling with World War III', while JD Vance, in full Wormtail mode, jumped in to ask: 'Have you even said thank-you once?' It was both difficult and embarrassing to watch. This is the asymmetry at the heart of Trump-era foreign policy: allies get the tongue-lashing, rivals get the literal red carpet. Zelensky's reward for resisting an existential threat was a televised scolding. Putin's reward for creating it has been years of deference and flattery. Recall the Helsinki summit, where Trump sided with the Russian leader over his own intelligence agencies, or the warm praise for Putin's 'genius'. Too self-satisfied to realize he's been manipulated, The Donald simply keeps walking into the same trap, over and over again. Trump himself seems to have realized how poor his own negotiating skills are in the past few weeks. Putin's not a blowhard like his American counterpart; he just does what he feels like, and everyone else be damned. Indeed, it was Donald himself who put it best in a press conference earlier in July where he described his ongoing efforts to help broker an end to the war in Ukraine thus: 'I get home, I say to the First Lady, 'I had the most wonderful talk with Vladimir. I think we are finished,'' to which Melania will apparently respond in kind: 'That's funny, because they just bombed a nursing home.' Therein lies the entire issue. Trump is brittle and easily manipulated; Putin talks him round again and again. Trump leaves those conversations utterly convinced of both Putin's integrity and his own genius. Then Putin goes on dropping bombs and killing people. It's a familiar story that's played out not just in Russia, and that we can expect to play out anywhere where there's a strongman leader with a penchant for basic flattery. And really, where better to stage this utterly redundant spectacle than Alaska — the state Trump accidentally referred to as Russia earlier this week, and which, of course, once belonged to the Russian Empire. After all, isn't the whole point to start returning old territories to their former owners? Alaska, a place that is currently arranging citizen evacuations because of an uncontrolled glacier flood due to the effects of climate change, where water is thundering toward a dam called Suicide Basin. (Anchorage is on the other end of the state to where all that is happening in Juneau, meaning that Trump was able to fly right over Suicide Basin and shutter his Qatari-gifted Air Force One windows to the sight of climate catastrophe before he landed at a military base to meet with the man who started a war to talk about ending it.) Alaska, the perfect place to propose — as leaks have suggested — that Russia has a 'West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine,' since all available geopolitical sources suggest that solution has already played out so well for everyone involved. And so the dance goes on, and tangible progress is not made but cameras and microphones and spotlights are perpetually trained on two geriatric egomaniacs. This kind of time-wasting theater always works in Russia's favor. The war will rumble on in Ukraine. The deal will never be made. Trump will get a few nice words, Putin will get his headlines. And the rest of us are left with just the images of Donald and his little band of spray-tanned comrades marching about in the Alaskan summer, isolated together in a cold state in the middle of nowhere, with only a friendly dictator to keep them warm.
