Latest news with #ArticleFive
The Herald Scotland
11-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Move over, Labour, Tories: plenty of room for a new party
History tells us that it is time for another existential event. A week ago, the latest attempt was made to precipitate this existential change, when Labour's problem child, Zarah Sultana, announced that she and Labour's problem grandad Jeremy Corbyn were forming a new political party. This one is going nowhere. Ms Sultana's opening gambit – 'it's socialism or barbarism' – told us what we needed to know. This is not a serious outfit and these are not serious people; they'll be talking to seven people in a North London wine bar by the time the next election rolls around. Nigel Farage is not likely to be in that wine bar, and not just because he's more of a country pub kind of guy. Love him or hate him, Mr Farage is a much more serious operator and is a large part of the way through executing a plan to destroy the Tory party and, as it turns out, maybe the Labour Party at the same time. Read more by Andy Maciver Mr Farage's plan – as I have written before on these pages – is actually remarkably similar to events, over the Atlantic in Canada, during the latter part of the last century and the early part of this one. In 1987 the Reform Party was formed in Western Canada as a populist protest against the out-of-touch elites in the East. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives were decimated. By 2002 they were dead. By 2006 Reform, feasting on the carcass of the Progressive Conservatives and renaming itself the Conservative Party of Canada, was in power, where it remained for almost a decade. If Mr Farage emulates his Canadian inspiration in 2029 and strolls into 10 Downing Street, the only people who could say they are surprised are those who aren't watching closely enough. Forget, for a moment, that we are talking about Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Forget that they currently look like the disruptors who could break the two-party monopoly of the last century. Britain finds itself in a doom loop and this is a monopoly which needs to be broken. If we need any more proof of this, the Labour Government's welfare debacle should tell us everything we need to know. Labour's welfare reform agenda, mild at the outset and indistinguishable from the status quo by the time it was rejected by the party's own MPs, is over. Almost one quarter of the working age population – the very people who should be earning the money to spend in the economy, and paying the tax to fund public services – is in receipt of welfare. We spend more than double the amount on working age welfare than we do on defence, at a time when President Putin is itching to test Nato's Article Five, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has his finger on the nuclear button. This is a uniquely British problem, and a debilitating one. Already swallowing a quarter of government spending, and well over half when combined with the healthcare budget, the welfare bill will now go up dramatically. Economic growth is predicted to be negligible. Political reality will lead to an increase in tax, which will further stifle growth and reduce the tax take. Pessimism is the enemy of progress, but pessimism is all I can muster today, particularly given that the Office of Budget responsibility appears to agree. The Tories are unable to clean this up, principally because although the British people will often give the Tory party permission to fix the economy, it will never give it permission to reform welfare or public services. And so, if the electorate will not allow the Tories to fix Britain's problems, and its own MPs will not allow Labour to fix Britain's problems, then someone else will have to. Nigel Farage has already jolted the two-party system (Image: PA) A proportional electoral system would help, decisively. This has been a long time coming. Westminster may be the mother of parliaments, but even old mums need to adapt to a change in circumstances. Britain's big issues – welfare, of course, but also failed public services, insufficient housing and emaciated infrastructure – cannot be overcome during the course of a single term of office. Yet our all-or-nothing first past the post system encourages short-term, undeliverable promises, and discourages sensible long-term policymaking. Proportional representation, at a stroke, would create a parliament of minorities and demand that they worked together strategically and without the frantic day-to-day Westminster reality that 'you're either with us or you're against us'. In Scotland, of course, we already have proportional representation. And I know what you're thinking: 'hold on Maciver, you idiot, Scotland isn't any better'. You'd be right, of course, but we've been scarred by the independence argument, which has in effect turned Holyrood into a two-tribe parliament of nationalists and unionists. This could change. Indeed, there is decent polling evidence that, between them the SNP and the Greens will not be able to command a parliamentary majority in favour of independence, which would take that issue off the table and allow calmer, considered policy. Those close to both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, for instance, would be in no way surprised if those parties found themselves working very closely together after next year's Holyrood election. That, on its own, won't be enough to change the rules of the game in the Scottish Parliament. What it needs to function as a real, European-style proportional parliament is for those parties which operate at arms length to parties in Westminster – the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems – to create or morph into parties of and for the Scottish Parliament alone. That this is the major long-term concern of SNP strategists tells its own story. The moral of the story is that there is nothing to fear from new political parties. Quite the opposite. They may be all that can save us from decline, decay and decomposition. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast
The Hill
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Ukrainians are fighting Russia so US troops don't have to
The debate over Ukraine aid often frames the conflict as a choice between domestic American priorities and foreign assistance. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands what is at stake. Ukraine is a direct investment in American national security that could prevent U.S. troops from directly fighting Russian forces in the near future. Recent statements from Moscow make this calculation clear. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared in June that the Ukraine war cannot end until NATO 'pulls out' of the Baltic states. This demand represents a dramatic escalation from Russia's previous position, which focused solely on Ukraine's NATO aspirations. Now the Kremlin is demanding the abandonment of NATO allies who have been treaty-protected members since 2004. This escalation reveals Russia's true strategic objective: not just preventing Ukraine's NATO membership, but rolling back the alliance's existing commitments. The Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — are full NATO members covered by Article Five, which states that an attack on one member constitutes an attack on all. Unlike Ukraine, any Russian aggression against these nations would legally require direct American military intervention. The strategic logic is clear: If Russia succeeds in Ukraine and then moves against the Baltics, American soldiers will be legally obligated to fight Russian forces directly. There would be no choice, no debate, no alternative. Supporting Ukraine today costs money and weapons. Fighting Russia tomorrow under Article Five would cost American lives. The current investment in Ukrainian defense represents perhaps the most cost-effective military expenditure in modern U.S. history. Critics might argue that Russia's Baltic demands are mere negotiating tactics. But this ignores the pattern of Russian aggression established over the past 16 years: Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022. Each time, Western leaders assumed Moscow would be satisfied with its gains — each time, they were wrong. The difference now is that Russia's next logical target, the Baltics, cannot be abandoned without destroying NATO itself. The alliance's credibility rests on the principle that Article Five means something. If NATO retreats from the Baltics under Russian pressure, the alliance becomes meaningless, and America's security guarantees across the globe lose their deterrent effect. There is now a unique strategic opportunity. Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and military capability, effectively serving as a force multiplier for U.S. security interests. Ukrainian forces are doing the fighting that American troops might otherwise have to do later, against a Russian military that grows weaker with each passing month. The choice facing American policymakers is between stopping Russia in Ukraine or potentially fighting them in the Baltics under conditions far less favorable to U.S. security. Every dollar spent on Ukrainian defense today is an investment in preventing American casualties tomorrow. Every Ukrainian victory weakens Russia's capacity to threaten NATO members. Every month this conflict continues reduces the likelihood that American troops will face Russian forces in direct combat. The question isn't whether America can afford to support Ukraine. It's whether America can afford not to. Khusanboy Kotibjonov is a political science student at New York University.
The Hill
06-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
NATO-Ukraine: A mutual investment in Euro-Atlantic security
Shortly after the NATO summit in The Hague, Ukraine faced one of the largest Russian airstrikes targeting Kyiv — a brutal reminder of the ongoing war and the urgent need for strengthened defenses. In this context, President Volodymyr Zelensky held a significant and constructive conversation with President Trump about the latest frontline developments, including Russian missile terror and opportunities for enhanced air defense. They agreed to work jointly on strengthening Ukraine's skies and defense industrial cooperation, especially in drones and critical technologies. Trump was well-informed and attentive, and both sides reaffirmed their commitment to a just and lasting peace. Every NATO summit is a vital indicator for Ukraine of how well the alliance is able to adapt to new challenges and continue to serve as the most effective security guarantee for European countries. It is also an indicator of how much NATO member states perceive Ukraine as 'one of their own' and understand that, just as the alliance invests in Ukraine's security and defense, we invest in Euro-Atlantic security and defense. In essence, this is a mutual investment in Euro-Atlantic security. Traditionally, every alliance summit is also an indicator of NATO's willingness to heed Russia's fabricated concerns over the alliance's enlargement policy. Expectations for the NATO summit in The Hague were modest — both within member states and among partner countries like Ukraine. Yet it injected new energy into transatlantic relations. It reinvigorated the alliance, evincing the complete failure of Russia's plans to dismantle NATO from within. Much of this success is due to Secretary General Mark Rutte's ability to find common ground with diverse leaders and act as a reliable bridge between Europe and the U.S. Rutte has emerged as the unifying figure the alliance needed at this critical juncture. As a result, the summit delivered clear answers to all the key questions. First, predictions by those who claimed the U.S. would withdraw from NATO almost immediately after Trump took office have proven premature. By clearly affirming America's commitment to Article Five of the Washington Treaty, Trump confirmed the U.S. role as the leader of the alliance. Some may find his approach overly harsh, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The demand for Europe to take greater care of its own security is, above all, a matter of common sense. Regardless of what skeptics say, Article Five remains functional. Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia has ever dared to test it, making claims of its ineffectiveness incorrect. What we can affirm is that the only time in NATO's history that Article Five has been invoked was in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the U.S. — not in reaction to any Soviet or Russian assault on an alliance member. Second, the goal of making NATO 'stronger, fairer, and more lethal' through a commitment to increase defense spending to 5 percent is not just about getting European NATO members to take more responsibility for their own security. It also represents a long-awaited recognition of Ukraine as an integral part of Euro-Atlantic security. This is evident in the summit declaration, which embedded continued support for Ukraine into member states' new defense target. The step signals the beginning of a new security mindset within the alliance — a slow but growing realization that supporting Ukraine is not only a moral duty toward the victim of the most brutal aggression in Europe since World War II but also a vital security interest for the alliance's member states, particularly in Europe. Of course, embedding long-term support for Ukraine into the new defense spending plans of NATO countries did not remove our urgent defense needs from the agenda — especially regarding additional air defense systems. Here, it's worth highlighting the very warm meeting between Presidents Zelensky and Trump. Although it focused on joint efforts for peace, the issue of protecting Ukrainian cities from Russia's terrorist drone and missile strikes was underscored separately. It is important to call things by their name. The prolonged drone terror against Ukrainians is primarily the result of close cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, established at the beginning of the large-scale war. As Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni rightly noted, the determination shown toward Iran must also be applied to Russia. Third, Russia's brazen and persistent efforts to convince the world that Ukraine's NATO aspirations 'forced' it to invade — and that once Ukraine abandons this goal, Russia will magically become constructive and reasonable — have once again failed. In NATO capitals, there is a growing understanding that Russia's ultimate goal in its war against Ukraine is not to eliminate Ukraine's NATO ambitions, but to destroy Ukraine as a state and nation and to restore the Russian empire in a new form. In other words, preventing Ukraine from joining NATO is not Putin's final goal — it is merely a tool to achieve it. Yes, there is still much work ahead to make this clear in every single capital, but we are undoubtedly on the right path. This is evidenced by the fact that NATO has not revised any of its previous positions on Ukraine's future membership. Although these formulations were not repeated in the communiqué, perhaps we should begin interpreting this omission as NATO acknowledging the irreversibility of Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic path — as a self-evident truth that no longer requires constant reiteration in every alliance statement. Of course, the answers provided in The Hague are not final. NATO's adaptation to the new Euro-Atlantic reality is ongoing. Despite the reaffirmed U.S. commitment to Article Five, Europe must assume greater responsibility, show more initiative, and truly begin to build up its defense capabilities. Doing this with Ukraine — whose armed forces are uniquely hardened by a modern war with Russia, along with its dynamic defense industry and technology — will make the process significantly easier and faster. Even without being a NATO member and without the involvement of NATO troops, Ukraine has for a long time been independently implementing the NATO's Strategic Concept of neutralizing Russia as the 'most significant and direct threat' to allies' security. 'You are among friends' — this phrase was used more than once in The Hague to welcome Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The results of the Hague summit are paving the way for a day when the Ukrainian president will be greeted with, 'You are among allies.' Andriy Yermak is head of the Office of the President of Ukraine and Alyona Getmanchuk is head of the Mission of Ukraine to NATO-designate.
NDTV
26-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Trump Calls Putin "Misguided", Says Russia May Invade Beyond Ukraine
The Hague: US President Donald Trump said it was "possible" that his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, may have ambitions of invading other countries after his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as he identified Russia as one of the greatest long-term threats to the security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) alliance. The American leader acknowledged that the conflict between Moscow and Kyiv has been harder to solve than he initially thought and said he believes Putin is "misguided" in his ambitions. Speaking at the NATO summit in the Hague on Wednesday, Trump indicated he will consider providing more missiles that Ukraine needs to defend against mounting Russian strikes, adding that Putin "really has to end that war", according to a report by US Today. Trump was asked whether Putin has territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. He replied, "It's possible." "I consider him (Putin) a person who I think is misguided," the US president said, adding that it has been "more difficult" to deal with the Russian leader than he anticipated. Trump also acknowledged that he had "some problems" with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. "I think it's a great time to end it (war). I'm going to speak to Vladimir Putin, see if we can get it ended...I'm very surprised, actually, I thought we would have had that settled easy," Trump was quoted as saying by US publication. The American commander in chief also left open the possibility of providing more military aid to Kyiv, which has suffered grinding Russian advances on the battlefield in recent months. He had previously shown no sign of resuming the donations of weaponry to Ukraine that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had instituted after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022. Asked directly whether the U.S. would contribute more funding to Ukraine's defence this year, Trump said: "As far as money going, we'll see what happens." Trump's remarks capped a shortened NATO meeting that placed less emphasis on Ukraine than during past summits to avoid friction with Trump. Trump had rattled allies on the summit's eve by appearing to cast some doubt on the validity of NATO's mutual defence clause -- known as Article Five of the alliance treaty. But the pledge was reaffirmed unequivocally in the summit's final statement -- and Trump drove the point home at his closing press conference. "I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing," Trump said in closing remarks to the press, when pressed on the mutual defence clause known as Article Five.
Observer
25-06-2025
- Business
- Observer
Trump reassures allies as Nato agrees 'historic' spending hike
THE HAGUE: US President Donald Trump took a victory lap at Nato's Hague summit on Wednesday, joining leaders in reaffirming the "ironclad" commitment to protect each other after allies agreed to his demand to ramp up defence spending. The unpredictable US leader appeared keen to take the plaudits as he secured a key foreign policy win by getting Nato's 32 countries to agree to meet his headline target of five per cent of GDP on defence spending. In a move that will provide reassurance to allies in Europe worried over the threat from Russia, Trump signed off on a final leaders' declaration confirming "our ironclad commitment" to Nato's collective defence pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all. "It's a great victory for everybody, I think, and we will be equalised," Trump said of the new spending commitment, ahead of the summit's main session. Diplomats said that behind closed doors Trump insisted there was no greater ally than Washington and urged others to spend some of the new money on US weaponry. The deal hatched by Nato is a compromise that allows Trump to claim triumph, while in reality providing wiggle room for cash-strapped governments in Europe. It sees countries promise to dedicate 3.5 per cent of GDP to core military spending by 2035, and a further 1.5 to broader security-related areas such as infrastructure. Entering the meeting, leaders lined up to declare the summit's spending hike as "historic". Nato allies say the increase is needed to counter a growing threat from Russia but also to keep Trump engaged, with the US leader long complaining that Europe spends too little on its own defence. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said: "As Europeans, we should realise that our long break from history is over." The continent needed to take responsibility for its own security "in a very difficult time", added De Wever. Everything was carefully choreographed at the gathering in The Hague to keep the volatile US president on board: from chopping back the official part of the meeting to putting him up overnight in the royal palace. Trump rattled his allies by appearing to cast some doubt on the validity of Nato's mutual defence clause — known as Article Five of the alliance treaty — telling reporters on the way to The Hague that it "depends on your definition. There's numerous definitions of Article Five." But Rutte insisted Trump remained "totally committed" to the pledge — which was reaffirmed unequivocally in the summit's final statement. Underpinning the leaders' discussions on defence was Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, and in another sop to the demands of allies the United States allowed Nato to refer to the "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security" in the communique. Though its language was watered down from previous years, the declaration also said allies would continue to support Ukraine "whose security contributes to ours" and could use money from the new spending pledge to fund military aid for Kyiv. That came as a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US leader Donald Trump has begun on the sidelines of the Nato summit in The Hague on Wednesday, the Ukrainian presidency said. The two leaders were set to discuss additional sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine and arms procurement for Kyiv, Zelensky is playing a less central role here than at previous summits, to avoid a bust-up with Trump after their infamous Oval Office shouting match. But Trump described him as a "nice guy" and added that he was talking to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war, saying: "I think progress is being made." — AFP
