We in Europe must do whatever it takes to ensure that Ukraine can secure its freedom and democracy
This week was an important step forward for protecting our national security. Credit where credit is due, the Prime Minister is right to commit to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027. But that step cannot be the final one. Not least because of our steadfast support for the Ukrainian people, their struggle and for President Zelensky personally.
The exchanges in the White House on Friday are not where that conversation ends. We have honest differences with the Trump Administration, which must be resolved. Because there can be no doubt that we are today living through the most dangerous times we have seen since the worst moments of the Cold War, such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
Then, the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of direct military confrontation. What was the lesson there? In the face of implacable US determination, the Russians backed down. Russia respects only hard force and will power.
That is why the UK must lead by example. We Europeans must prepare for the worst. Our motto must be peace through strength. It is now abundantly clear all Nato allies must rapidly increase their defence spending. The UK should commit to raising defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by the end of this Parliament. The Prime Minister will have our support in taking the difficult decisions required to make this happen.
By doing so, he will be able to demonstrate the sort of leadership Margaret Thatcher did, placing Britain unambiguously at the forefront of the European side of Nato and gaining credence in the eyes of our closest ally, the United States, whose commitment to Nato deterrence in Europe cannot now be taken for granted. The Prime Minister’s role now, in the aftermath of President Zelensky’s experience in Washington, is to do everything to prevent a split between Europe and the United States.
The defining challenge for this generation of political leaders in the western world is to confront a new axis of authoritarian states: Russia, China, Iran and others. If we fail to respond robustly to their aggression, we will face a bitter reckoning sooner or later.
What can the Government do now, given that the benefits of increased defence spending do not kick in immediately, to avoid this reckoning and defend our national interest?
The Prime Minister could show global leadership by committing the UK to confiscating frozen Russian assets in British financial institutions to fund the Ukraine war effort. Today, the leaders of all the democracies of Europe will meet together with President Zelensky. Those European leaders he is meeting today could well follow Britain’s lead on assets. That kind of coordinated action uses some of the best leverage Europe has. The fragile geopolitical picture which is unfolding means this is no time to allow bureaucratic legal arguments to prevent us exerting maximum pressure on Putin.
The Prime Minister can also use the gathering of European leaders to make immediate progress. For example, given that the incoming German Chancellor has pledged to send medium range Taurus missiles to Kyiv, perhaps the outgoing administration can process this commitment while coalition talks are ongoing. This would provide Kyiv with much needed firepower and show Moscow that Europe remains committed to Ukraine in deeds, not just words.
The context for the leaders’ summit has deteriorated, badly. European leaders now need to repair the US-Ukraine relationship. The gap between Kyiv and Washington only serves the Kremlin’s interests. The scenes in the Oval Office will have brought joy to Putin, who longs for divisions within the Western alliance. All European nations must now reiterate how the freedom and future security of Ukraine is intrinsic to peace and freedom for our whole continent. And the Americans need to be persuaded, just as they were in the 1940s, that America’s national security is indivisible from our own. A wider war in Europe would inevitably and once again draw the United States into a global conflict.
After European leaders return to their capitals, what can the Government do in the longer term to defend our national interest?
One bold decision: the Prime Minister must set a date to raise defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP. This would equip the UK with our own resources to deter the new axis of authoritarian states. Today the Ministry of Defence struggles to place orders for equipment which would be delivered in several years’ time because we do not know what money the Treasury will allocate for defence by then. A decision would also give our defence and security manufacturers the certainty they need to make larger investments in advanced technology to keep us safe. A longer term, higher budget for defence would mean better planning all round.
The Government is conducting a Spending Review and a Defence Review. Those are opportunities to spell out, clearly, how the UK will meet the target and when. This is not the time for Treasury accounting tricks, like redefining defence spending to reach the target. It is time to understand that the debate is no longer about “if” we reach 3 per cent but when. I believe this should be sooner than the end of the decade because Russia could take as little as two to three years to rearm its land forces properly if fighting ceases in Ukraine. We must have a clear, fully-funded plan for the Government, and that can’t be more tax and more borrowing.
We in Europe must do whatever it takes, on our own if we must, to ensure that Ukraine can secure its freedom and democracy. For without that, there can be no secure or settled peace for Europe as a whole.
We must build up Nato’s European armed forces, so we are better able to defend ourselves, our freedom, and our values, and to deter the Russian aggressor.
Failing to set out a plan to reach 3 per cent of GDP on defence is tantamount to planning to fail. The road to 3 per cent will require tough choices. But we are living in unprecedentedly tough times. If we want peace, we must prepare for war.
This article was originally published in The Telegraph
