.
Europe
United Kingdom
Feb 21, 2025 A sobering message for Starmer ahead of talks with Trump via Number 10. As Britain’s Prime Minister gears up for a critical meeting with Trump in Washington next week, NATO’s former second-in-command to Europe has a sobering message for him. Keir Starmer “will just be laughed out of court, frankly”, warned General Shirreff today, ’unless there’s been a clear signal from the UK Government that defence spending is going to rise to probably around 3 per cent as a starter’. Britain spends around 2.3 per cent of GDP on defence, which is higher than NATO’s current target of 2 per cent. But it’s well below the whopping 5 per cent figure Trump is demanding of other alliance members, while threatening to encourage the Russians to do whatever the hell they want to any NATO country that doesn't cough up. In its election manifesto, Labour promised to increase the military’s budget to at least 2.5 per cent, which would cost around £5bn extra a year. RUSI estimated back in 2022, that increasing defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 would require £157 billion worth of additional spending over eight years. The government’s winter fuel payment cut to pensioners is forecast to save £1.3 billion in 2024-25. Britain’s tax burden is already at a post-war high - in the financial year to January, the UK borrowed more than £118 billion - the fourth highest borrowing period since comparable records began in 1993. One key issue to tackle to find savings will be the rising levels of economic inactivity in Britain. The number of individuals in Britain on out-of-work sickness benefits - who are not actively seeking employment - currently stands at 3.2 million. That’s a rise of one million in just five years, with an associated welfare cost of another £10 billion a year. In some parts of Glasgow and Grimsby, almost a third of the working-age population is on sickness benefits. When it comes to the ballooning £48bn UK welfare bill for sickness, which is expected to increase to over £60bn by the end of the decade if trends continue, the fault, lies not with the individuals claiming sickness benefits but with flaws in the system, which mean those struggling with long-term illness are not supported to return to the workplace, and those wanting to return to work are actively disincentivised from doing so: combine sickness benefit with disability benefit (or “PIP”) and it adds up to more than the minimum wage. Reeves is planning £5 billion of welfare cuts at the spending review. The Work and Pensions Secretary, Kendall, is understood to be pressing the Treasury to use some of the savings for an expansion of back-to-work support services for the long-term sick, insisting this measure will pay for itself and is in everyone’s interest. Ahead of the spending review, Reeves is under heavy pressure from officials in the Ministry of Defence who insist that any savings generated should be prioritised for their department. When it comes to increasing defence spending, a bigger budget is only half the challenge: the other crucial task will be ensuring that money is spent wisely. Ministers will be required to make about how best to allocate resources between land, air and sea. When it comes to investment in tech and hardware, a recognition of the ever-greater role that AI plays in defence and deterrence is important. Warnings about the danger of re-arming without re-industrialising will also place demand on ministers to strengthen their support for Britain’s steel industry. Another sticking point as Starmer gears up for his trip across the Atlantic next week. (Source: Reaction.life - news website, United Kingdom)
by Allen, Deputy Editor
North America
United States
February 21, 2025 President Trump delivers remarks at the Governors Working Session /Video/ (Source: YouTube / White House = U.S.)
164 918 views
February 21, 2025 ... - The administration knows where wants to go. There’s no interagency process, but when has that ever stopped a Trump administration before? Kellogg, the president’s special envoy for Ukraine, stayed in Europe after the others left and talked to European leaders. He even made a trip to Kyiv. So they aren’t completely ignoring Europe. But the administration clearly intends to be in the driver’s seat on negotiations. They even sent around a survey asking states what they can commit to future Ukrainian defense in concrete terms. The elephant in the room: seems like Trump is having some kind of personal spat with Zelensky. He took to Truth Social this week to refer to him as a “dictator” and suggested that Ukraine should hold new elections. Trump also suggested - not so subtly - that Ukraine itself was responsible for starting the war. This is some attempt at 12-dimensional chess from the administration, some people have argued that this is just about pushing Zelensky to the table. Then Zelensky refused to sign a document committing some of Ukraine’s mineral resources to the United States, almost as a kind of reparations for U.S. aid. At least some of these resources are in Russian-occupied areas, and others will be hard to extract in wartime - What Trump does? In his first term, he said nice things about Putin while instituting a hard-nosed underlying policy. The idea of using Ukrainian critical minerals as collateral for U.S. assistance would give the United States a direct stake in the long-term security and stability of Ukraine. A good strategy starts with a clear goal. How will Ukraine be secured in the long run? Many European allies are promising to commit troops as a kind of trip-wire force. But what if deterrence fails and Putin attacks anyway? Will these European nations, like Sweden and the United Kingdom, really go to war with Russia? Are they expecting an American military backstop? If so, how is that different from NATO membership for Ukraine? Some kind of American backstop could still commit the United States to fight a war with Russia over Ukraine - something the Trump administration is keen to avoid. There is too much talk about a trip-wire force and not enough talk about the military strategy for defending Ukraine. One should start with the defense strategy and then design the trip wire accordingly. - There are a lot of different proposals out there for what to do next: neutrality and security guarantees, global south peacekeepers, even Europe leaving NATO! The most prevalent is this notion that Europe will send troops, either to act as peacekeepers or as a trip-wire force to prevent future conflict. All the European discussions of a trip-wire force are pointless. They’re not credible, barely practical, and all of them require U.S. support of some kind. ’The only viable approach is a Ukraine that is strong enough to deter future attacks’. It’s quite achievable, particularly when Europe and the United States aren’t pouring thousands of rounds of ammunition and arms into an active conflict. It’s also likely to be more acceptable to Russia than some token European force, and it gives the Europeans more breathing space to build up their militaries for their own defense. ’I sincerely hope this is one of the options the administration has on the table; it’s win-win-win. (Source: Foreign Policy - U.S.)
by Ashford, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a senior fellow with the Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University, and the author of Oil, the State, and War; Kroenig, a columnist at Foreign Policy and vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, a professor in the Department of Government and the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. His latest book, with Negrea, is We Win, They Lose: Republican Foreign Policy and the New Cold War.
(February 21, 2025) '1991 – 2025 Ukraine’s struggle for independence in Russia’s shadow' /Photo/ (Source: Council on Foreign Relations - Headquarters New York City, U.S.)
Note: A version
NATO
February 21, 2025 Ukraine’s biggest backers in percent of GDP. For the Baltic states - NATO states near Russia - helping Ukraine ’is a strategic necessity’ given their geographic vulnerability. Estonia is contributing 2.2 percent of its GDP, Lithuania 1.8 percent, Latvia 1.5 percent. Denmark has a vital interest in the security of the Baltic and Arctic regions. It allocates more than 2 percent of its GDP to supporting Ukraine. The U.S. is the 12th largest contributor as a share of GDP (0.5 percent). Europe as a whole provided more than 132 billion euros in financial, humanitarian and military aid. The U.S. has provided nearly $120 billion (115 billion euros), far more than any single European country or the EU. The U.S. is the biggest contributor of military aid, providing roughly five times more than Germany, the next largest contributor. If Washington has its way, Europe's share of the burden is about to rise. /Map/ (Source: Geopolitical Futures - U.S.)
.
