Latest news with #Nato-led
NZ Herald
16-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Ben Roberts-Smith's war crimes appeal dismissed by Australia's Federal Court
Justice Nye Perram withheld the reasons for the decision, saying there were national security implications the Government must consider before they are released. A published summary said there was sufficient evidence to support findings Roberts-Smith had 'murdered four Afghan men'. Roberts-Smith argued in his appeal that the judge 'erred' in the way he assessed some of the evidence. Perth-born Roberts-Smith had been Australia's most famous and distinguished living soldier. He won the Victoria Cross – Australia's highest military honour – for 'conspicuous gallantry' in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander. The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times shredded this reputation with a series of reports in 2018. The papers reported Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him. He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel. The 2023 court ruling ultimately implicated Roberts-Smith in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners. Civil court matters such as defamation have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials. Roberts-Smith has not faced criminal charges. Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of US and Nato-led operations against the Taliban and other militant groups. A 2020 military investigation found special forces personnel 'unlawfully killed' 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners, revealing allegations of summary executions, body count competitions and torture by Australian forces.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Time of India
Decorated Australian soldier loses war crimes defamation appeal
Former SAS commando Ben Roberts-Smith is allegations he took part in the murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners (Representative Image: AI-generated) One of Australia 's most decorated soldiers on Friday lost a legal bid to overturn bombshell court findings that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan. Former SAS commando Ben Roberts-Smith has been fighting to repair his tattered reputation since 2018, when newspapers unearthed allegations he took part in the murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners. Ben Roberts-Smith loses appeal to overturn defamation decision | ABC NEWS His multi-million dollar bid to sue three Australian newspapers for defamation failed in 2023, with a judge ruling the bulk of the journalists' claims were "substantially true". The 46-year-old suffered another setback on Friday, when Australia's federal court dismissed his appeal. Justice Nye Perram withheld the reasons for the decision, saying there were national security implications the government must consider before they are released. A published summary said there was sufficient evidence to support findings that Roberts-Smith had "murdered four Afghan men". Roberts-Smith argued in his appeal that the judge "erred" in the way he assessed some of the evidence. Perth-born Roberts-Smith had been Australia's most famous and distinguished living soldier. He won the Victoria Cross -- Australia's highest military honour -- for "conspicuous gallantry" in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander. The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times shredded this reputation with a series of reports in 2018. The papers reported Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him. He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel. The 2023 court ruling ultimately implicated Roberts-Smith in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners. Civil court matters such as defamation have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials. Roberts-Smith has not faced criminal charges. Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of US and Nato-led operations against the Taliban and other militant groups. A 2020 military investigation found special forces personnel "unlawfully killed" 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners, revealing allegations of summary executions, body count competitions and torture by Australian forces.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine
If the recent history of European military cooperation is anything to go by, Moscow has little to fear from the proposed deployment of a motley collection of European troops to safeguard Ukraine's security. In their desperate efforts to curry favour with US president Donald Trump, various European leaders have mooted the idea of sending some, as yet undefined, military contingent to keep the peace in the event of a lasting ceasefire being implemented between Kyiv and Moscow. Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to apply a sticking plaster to the edifice of Britain's crumbling Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget, was clearly designed to give him a veneer of credibility before his meeting with Trump. Having pledged UK support for any future military operation to guarantee Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the sceptical Trump administration that our Armed Forces still retain the ability to conduct such a role. French president Emmanuel Macron is similarly keen on the idea of dispatching a European force to Ukraine, telling Trump this week that he was working with Starmer to send troops to the region. 'Not to go to the front line, not to go in confrontation, but to be in some locations, being defined by the treaty, as a presence to maintain this peace and our collective credibility,' the French leader told Fox News. Several European countries have expressed reservations about the Starmer/Macron peace initiative, not least their vagueness about the role such a force would fulfil. Of equal concern should be the dismal record of Europe's military powers of working effectively together on major security challenges – as was evident the last time the European powers contributed to a major overseas military operation, in Afghanistan. At its height, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to bring some semblance of stability to the war-torn nation, comprised significant contributions from all the main European powers. The total number of British forces eventually reached around 10,000, in support of the US-led operation. Germany sent 5,000 troops, Italy nearly 4,000 while the 4,000-strong French contingent included large numbers of special forces. The total Nato forces operating in Afghanistan – which is roughly the same size as Ukraine – reached a peak number of around 130,000. But the ability of the different forces – especially the Europeans – to work together to achieve the same policy objectives was virtually non-existent. From the outset, the Italians were hampered by constraints imposed by the their country's government, which prevented them from participating in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency, while the German group was so risk averse it rarely ventured out of its heavily defended base in the northern district around Mazar-i-Sharif. The French, meanwhile, fulfilled a peripheral role until their then president Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally ended their involvement, thereby precipitating the collapse of the entire mission. Is there any evidence that the Europeans are better equipped now for a Ukraine mission? With no guarantees that the Trump administration will authorise US involvement in such an operation, the onus would be on the Europeans to provide their own command and logistics infrastructure, something that is badly lacking given their pre-Trump disinclination to take their defence responsibilities seriously. While Nato has made significant efforts in recent years to improve operational inter-operability between the armies, navies and air forces of the alliance's European members, it remains questionable whether they could function without the support of the American military. Concerns about Trump's long-term commitment to Nato, though, have prompted some to argue in favour of the European Union resurrecting its plans to establish its own defence and security operation to rival the Transatlantic alliance. If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on the role – or so the argument goes. This is short-sighted. Trump is a challenging ally but that does not mean the EU should turn its back on Nato and establish its own military force. Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its failure to take seriously its defence obligations, both in terms of financial contributions and military effectiveness. A sounder way to make Europe's military forces better equipped to counter the generational threat posed by hostile regimes like Russia would be for European leaders to undertake a widespread rationalisation of their existing forces within existing Nato structures. If the various armies, navies and air forces of Nato's European member states could operate as a unified unit under a combined command structure, then they would be less likely to pursue their own individual national agendas, as was the case in Afghanistan. It would mean that, when Starmer and Macron talk about sending a European military force to Ukraine, people would take them seriously. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine
If the recent history of European military cooperation is anything to go by, Moscow has little to fear from the proposed deployment of a motley collection of European troops to safeguard Ukraine's security. In their desperate efforts to curry favour with US president Donald Trump, various European leaders have mooted the idea of sending some, as yet undefined, military contingent to keep the peace in the event of a lasting ceasefire being implemented between Kyiv and Moscow. Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to apply a sticking plaster to the edifice of Britain's crumbling Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget, was clearly designed to give him a veneer of credibility before his meeting with Trump. Having pledged UK support for any future military operation to guarantee Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the sceptical Trump administration that our Armed Forces still retain the ability to conduct such a role. French president Emmanuel Macron is similarly keen on the idea of dispatching a European force to Ukraine, telling Trump this week that he was working with Starmer to send troops to the region. 'Not to go to the front line, not to go in confrontation, but to be in some locations, being defined by the treaty, as a presence to maintain this peace and our collective credibility,' the French leader told Fox News. Several European countries have expressed reservations about the Starmer/Macron peace initiative, not least their vagueness about the role such a force would fulfil. Of equal concern should be the dismal record of Europe's military powers of working effectively together on major security challenges – as was evident the last time the European powers contributed to a major overseas military operation, in Afghanistan. At its height, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to bring some semblance of stability to the war-torn nation, comprised significant contributions from all the main European powers. The total number of British forces eventually reached around 10,000, in support of the US-led operation. Germany sent 5,000 troops, Italy nearly 4,000 while the 4,000-strong French contingent included large numbers of special forces. The total Nato forces operating in Afghanistan – which is roughly the same size as Ukraine – reached a peak number of around 130,000. But the ability of the different forces – especially the Europeans – to work together to achieve the same policy objectives was virtually non-existent. From the outset, the Italians were hampered by constraints imposed by the their country's government, which prevented them from participating in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency, while the German group was so risk averse it rarely ventured out of its heavily defended base in the northern district around Mazar-i-Sharif. The French, meanwhile, fulfilled a peripheral role until their then president Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally ended their involvement, thereby precipitating the collapse of the entire mission. Is there any evidence that the Europeans are better equipped now for a Ukraine mission? With no guarantees that the Trump administration will authorise US involvement in such an operation, the onus would be on the Europeans to provide their own command and logistics infrastructure, something that is badly lacking given their pre-Trump disinclination to take their defence responsibilities seriously. While Nato has made significant efforts in recent years to improve operational inter-operability between the armies, navies and air forces of the alliance's European members, it remains questionable whether they could function without the support of the American military. Concerns about Trump's long-term commitment to Nato, though, have prompted some to argue in favour of the European Union resurrecting its plans to establish its own defence and security operation to rival the Transatlantic alliance. If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on the role – or so the argument goes. This is short-sighted. Trump is a challenging ally but that does not mean the EU should turn its back on Nato and establish its own military force. Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its failure to take seriously its defence obligations, both in terms of financial contributions and military effectiveness.
The Independent
24-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Badenoch to advocate putting British interests first in foreign policy speech
Kemi Badenoch will advocate putting British interests first and say it is 'not a selfish objective' to want to 'strengthen our country and to look after ourselves', as she delivers a speech on foreign policy. The Conservative leader will also warn that there will be 'painful decisions on government spending' when it comes to funding defence. In the address on Tuesday, Mrs Badenoch will also advocate a 'need to disengage' from international bodies if they are 'taken over by activists or by autocratic regimes like China or Russia'. Her speech comes with diplomacy high on the agenda as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer heads to Washington this week, where he is expected to discuss Russia's war in Ukraine while also hoping to contain a growing transatlantic rift. Mrs Badenoch will say that 'our foreign policy should seek to support our national interest' and 'sovereignty must be at the core of our foreign policy'. 'A nation state's primary purpose is to defend its borders, its values and its people,' she is expected to say. 'Our national interest is first and foremost to protect our country, to strengthen our country, and to look after ourselves. That means a strong military and a strong economy. 'That is not a selfish objective, it is realism – because you cannot help others if you cannot help yourself. Strengthening Britain must be the principal objective at the heart of everything we do.' She is also expected to say: 'International law should not become a tool for NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and other critics to seek to advance an activist political agenda through international bodies and our domestic courts. 'And if international bodies are taken over by activists, or by autocratic regimes like China or Russia, we must use our influence to stop them. And if that fails, we will need to disengage.' The speech – due to be delivered a day after the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine – will also touch on defence, as Mrs Badenoch will say 'we must do what it takes to protect Britain'. 'That means not just our independent nuclear deterrent, but also the ability to protect our critical national infrastructure – at home and under the sea. It means having the capability required to contribute meaningfully to Nato-led deterrence in Europe, and the new technologies for the battles of tomorrow.' US President Donald Trump has been putting pressure on European Nato allies to increase their defence spending and shoulder more of the burden of security on the continent. However, Mrs Badenonch is to warn that voters will not back plans if they are seen to be pitching public services against defence spending. 'If we approach this challenge as a zero-sum game – as a simple choice between defence spending and public services – we will struggle to persuade the public to back it,' the Tory leader will say. 'And there will be painful decisions on government spending. Any country that spends more interest on its debt than on defence, as the UK does today, is destined for weakness.' Sir Keir, on his trip to Washington, is expected to discuss his calls for a US 'backstop' to a peace agreement in Ukraine, as well as defence spending. The visit will mark a critical moment for his leadership as he seeks to balance support for Kyiv with keeping the White House on side, and the Prime Minister is under pressure to use the trip to confirm a timeline to raise UK defence spending to 2.5% of national income. Labour accused Mrs Badenoch of being 'part of a Conservative government which hollowed out our armed forces, made us more reliant on Putin for our energy needs and diminished Britain's standing on the world stage'. A spokesperson added: 'We will always work constructively with opposition parties in the national interest but the Conservatives must take responsibility for their record over 14 years of government.'
