logo
It's not too late for Britain to act and lead Europe in defending Ukraine

It's not too late for Britain to act and lead Europe in defending Ukraine

Yahoo28-04-2025
The sight of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky conferring in the majestic calm of St Peter's Basilica offers a reminder that all is not lost in Ukraine.
Yes, their encounter came straight after Vladimir Putin's open-armed greeting for Steve Witkoff, the American envoy; true, Mr Trump's seven-point peace plan obviously favours Russia.
But the president might yet redeem everything by giving Ukraine the clear American security guarantee that remains the only sure way of ending this war and deterring Putin from coming back for a third invasion.
To maximise this chance, our Government needs to do something difficult and profoundly counter-cultural for many of our diplomats. There is no point fuming over Mr Trump's folly or portraying him as the villain of Ukraine's ordeal, or hoping that a miraculous combination of blandishment and flattery (a state visit!) might still win him over.
Instead, Britain should use the levers that are in our hands, setting an example that European allies might follow. Now is the moment to lead.
That means taking three steps: seize the Russian assets, lower the price cap for Putin's oil, and back the Sanctions Bill now in the US Senate.
Charles de Gaulle once advised a British ambassador to pause every day and consider events 'from the point of view of the future historian'. In 50 years, historians are going to be astonished that even as Putin was waging the bloodiest European war since 1945, Europe was sitting on about €230 billion (£196 billion) of Russian state assets, lying frozen in dozens of banks.
Think what could be done with that colossal sum, amounting to 140 per cent of Ukraine's GDP. We could give it all to Kyiv, allowing Mr Zelensky to multiply his military spending fivefold. Or we could use €100 billion to capitalise a bank to kick-start Europe's rearmament while still leaving almost enough to triple Ukraine's defence budget.
That money could have what generals call 'strategic effect': it might change the course of the war. Best of all, Europe has the power to force Russia to become the first aggressor in history to fund the resistance to its own aggression. Then we could tell every Russian that their own money was buying the shells and bullets killing their own soldiers.
So why hasn't it happened? There is a legal basis for pressing ahead, but seizing the assets would still be held to violate property rights, deter investment and damage the reputation of Europe's law-abiding open economies.
These objections, once decisive, have surely been overtaken by the gravity of events. In fact Europe has already crossed the Rubicon and undermined property rights by freezing the assets and using their interest payments to underwrite a $50 billion loan for Ukraine. But there is still no EU consensus behind full seizure.
Our Government should remember that Britain is no longer bound by EU decision-making. At this moment, £25 billion of Russian assets lie frozen in UK institutions. Britain should go ahead and seize them, establishing a precedent for the EU to follow. If that needs emergency legislation, so be it.
Taking £25 billion would not have strategic effect but it would still fund a 60 per cent increase in Ukraine's defence budget, or allow this year's £3 billion of British military aid to be multiplied eightfold.
Our Government should get on and do it and break the deadlock.
As we strengthen Ukraine's finances, so we must do more to weaken Russia's. The G7 has imposed a price cap on Russian oil exports, denying insurance or services to any tanker carrying Putin's oil unless it sells its cargo for $60 a barrel or less.
But the market price for oil is now down to around $66, making the price cap virtually meaningless. The obvious answer would be to lower the limit, but that would require a G7 consensus and America can no longer be relied upon.
Should we stare helplessly at this impasse or try to break it? Britain is the biggest provider of maritime insurance in the G7. We could use that lever to impose our own price cap for Russian oil, say of $30 per barrel, and once again set a precedent for others to follow.
Meanwhile, not every American Republican agrees with Trump on Russia. On April 1, Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, introduced a Bill in the Senate to impose what he called 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Russia, designed to choke Putin's oil exports once and for all by levying a 500 per cent tariff on any country that buys them.
That Bill now has the public backing of 55 senators, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The votes are there to get it passed.
Does the British Government have a view? Is our embassy in Washington lobbying in favour of Senator Graham's sanctions? Is Lord Mandelson, our new ambassador, gliding the corridors of Capitol Hill, using his famous diplomatic skills to promote this measure. If not, why not?
Everything I have written challenges the deeply ingrained culture of the Foreign Office. During nearly eight years working there and in Downing Street, I saw how our diplomats are steeped in the belief that Britain can never achieve anything important except in concert with others, preferably America, and if that is impossible then it's usually best to do nothing. Their mantra is: act 'in company' or not at all.
The problem with saying 'never act alone' is that it becomes 'never act first' and then 'never lead'. Boris Johnson had to overrule the weight of Whitehall opinion when, in January 2022, he sent 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine just before the full-scale invasion, when no other country was publicly arming Kyiv.
By proposing the unilateral use of hard power – supplying missiles – he was challenging a sacred dogma of British diplomacy. But Johnson was vindicated when those weapons helped Ukraine to wreck Russia's invasion plan and defeat Putin's assault on Kyiv. Soon dozens of European countries were following Britain's lead and sending arms.
We should learn the lesson: we are not powerless and sometimes it pays to go first.
In Mr Trump's new world, waiting for Washington can no longer be a reflex. Today nothing matters more than for the Foreign Office to shake off the outdated attitude that ties our hands.
These three steps are within our power. So what are we waiting for?
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Global Electric Mobility: Insights From BearingPoint and HRI Show Technology on Par, but Market Attractiveness Depends on Infrastructure, Price, and Trust
Global Electric Mobility: Insights From BearingPoint and HRI Show Technology on Par, but Market Attractiveness Depends on Infrastructure, Price, and Trust

Business Wire

time28 minutes ago

  • Business Wire

Global Electric Mobility: Insights From BearingPoint and HRI Show Technology on Par, but Market Attractiveness Depends on Infrastructure, Price, and Trust

AMSTERDAM--(BUSINESS WIRE)--As battery electric vehicles (BEVs) reach similar levels of technological maturity worldwide, other factors are now decisive in shaping market attractiveness and influencing consumer purchasing decisions. The new 2025 E-Mobility Attractiveness Index by BearingPoint and the Handelsblatt Research Institute compares for the first time the four major auto markets: China, France, Germany, and the US. The index aims to assess how BEVs are perceived in each market — based on objective data and country-specific surveys of drivers — and to identify the key factors influencing market success. Price, incentives, and power: e-mobility will only reach the mass market when purchase incentives, charging infrastructure, and fair electricity prices come together. Share China leads the index with a score of 133.5 points (baseline 100), followed by the US (114.4), Germany (108.4), and France (94.6). The technological foundation of available BEVs — including range, charging speed, and energy consumption — has become increasingly similar across models in all four countries. As a result, competition is shifting away from the technology itself toward infrastructural and policy frameworks, as well as brand trust. 'China's lead is strategically grounded but not insurmountable. It stems from years of political initiatives, massive support for domestic automakers, targeted market regulation, and consistent technology transfer. Europe can remain competitive if it creates innovation-friendly frameworks, keeps international markets accessible to European manufacturers, regulates and promotes more swiftly, and maintains its focus on quality, digitalization, and sustainability,' says Sven Jung, Director of Economic Analysis & Financial Planning at the Handelsblatt Research Institute. Charging infrastructure determines everyday usability The importance of charging infrastructure is particularly evident. In China and Germany, BEV customers benefit from a high density of public charging stations, which provide reliable coverage not only in urban areas but also across rural regions. In contrast, France and the US have a patchy charging network — especially in rural areas and large cities without access to private charging — which significantly limits everyday usability and, thus, market penetration. 'For a charging infrastructure to be truly usable in everyday life, two key factors are essential. First, it must be so well-developed that drivers no longer need to plan routes around charging stations. And second, fast-charging points are crucial to ensure that charging itself doesn't result in significant time loss,' comments Sven Jung. Monetary aspects are crucial, but are heavily influenced by policy The index results also show that while monetary factors, such as vehicle prices and electricity costs, remain central to purchasing decisions, they are heavily influenced by policy. In China, electric vehicles are especially affordable due to government subsidies, low electricity prices, and cost advantages from mass production. In contrast, high electricity costs and the removal of purchase incentives in Germany reduce BEV market attractiveness. Moreover, high EU tariffs weaken the competitiveness of Chinese models. In response, manufacturers like BYD and Leapmotor are investing in production facilities in Europe. 'Price, incentives, and power: e-mobility will only reach the mass market when purchase incentives, charging infrastructure, and fair electricity prices come together — and here, also governments have a role to play. In Germany, for example, a targeted reintroduction of purchase premiums, tax incentives to regulate electricity prices, and a rapid expansion of the charging network could have a significant short-term impact. In the medium term, promoting affordable BEV models, combined with OEM innovation and scaling, as well as investment in semiconductors, battery cell production, recycling, and the development of local value chains, will be key,' explains Manuel Schuler, Global Leader Automotive and Industrial Manufacturing at BearingPoint. Trust is also a critical but often underestimated success factor Trust in manufacturers also plays a central role, especially in international brand comparisons. In all four examined markets, domestic brands perform best: BYD in China, Renault in France, VW in Germany, and Tesla in the US. With 155.9 points, BYD achieved the highest individual score in the Attractiveness Index. However, these brands lose significant attractiveness in foreign markets, highlighting the strong influence of regional brand loyalty and trust on purchase decisions. Chinese manufacturers like BYD and MG, despite their technological maturity, struggle with image issues in Europe. The trust advantage of German brands — particularly in the premium segment — remains a strategic asset, though it is increasingly under pressure, especially among younger and more brand-agnostic consumers. 'Chinese OEMs are technically competitive, but they need to build trust through better branding and a reliable local presence. Successful market entry requires a long-term commitment, competitive pricing, a strong understanding of local customer needs, and a market-specific brand strategy. Only then can they translate their technical quality into actual market success,' says Manuel Schuler. About the Study The E-Mobility Attractiveness Index was developed in 2024 by BearingPoint and the Handelsblatt Research Institute for the German market. It reflects the attractiveness of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to potential buyers within a given market. In 2025, the index was also calculated for China, France, and the US. The index is based on a survey of drivers in each country regarding trust in manufacturers' quality promises and perceptions of digital innovation, along with objective parameters such as price, range, charging speed, electricity costs per 100 kilometers, and charging station density. These factors are weighted differently according to their importance in the purchasing decision. The evaluation includes vehicle models from various manufacturers that are either currently in demand or expected to be relevant in each country, representing a range of price segments. A portion of the manufacturers — VW, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Tesla, and BYD (not available in the USA) — is identical across all four countries. About the Handelsblatt Research Institute Handelsblatt Research Institute (HRI) is an independent research Institute owned by the Handelsblatt Media Group. It produces scientific studies on behalf of clients such as companies, financial investors, associations, foundations, and government agencies. It benefits from the combined scientific expertise of a 20-strong team of economists, social and natural scientists, information scientists, and historians with journalistic expertise in the preparation of the results. The Handelsblatt Research Institute works with a network of partners and specialists. It also offers desk research, competitive analysis, and market research services. About BearingPoint BearingPoint is an independent management and technology consultancy with European roots and a global reach. The company operates in three business units: Consulting, Products, and Capital. Consulting covers the advisory business with a clear focus on selected business areas. Products provides IP-driven digital assets and managed services for business-critical processes. Capital delivers M&A and transaction services. In addition, BearingPoint runs the joint venture Arcwide, focused on business transformation and consulting excellence based on IFS. BearingPoint's clients include many of the world's leading companies and organizations. The firm has a global consulting network with more than 10,000 people and supports clients in over 70 countries, engaging with them to achieve measurable and sustainable success. BearingPoint is a certified B Corporation, meeting high standards of social and environmental impact.

'We're Getting the Band Back Together': Stellantis Stock (NASDAQ:AVAV) Notches Up on Multiple Moves
'We're Getting the Band Back Together': Stellantis Stock (NASDAQ:AVAV) Notches Up on Multiple Moves

Business Insider

time28 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

'We're Getting the Band Back Together': Stellantis Stock (NASDAQ:AVAV) Notches Up on Multiple Moves

Today proved to be a big day for legacy automaker Stellantis (STLA), which brought back a division, expanded a major leadership slot, and even brought out some less-than-exciting sales numbers. All of this together left investors a bit conflicted, but optimistic enough to send Stellantis shares rising fractionally in Wednesday afternoon's trading. Don't Miss TipRanks' Half-Year Sale Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week. New CEO Antonio Filosa hit the ground running, setting up a major shift in the company's leadership by moving Tim Kuniskis to take over all American brands. Kuniskis will now be handling lead marketing and strategy duties for North America as well. Given that Kuniskis was already in charge of Ram, this makes particular sense; Ram is a major brand in the United States, and now, he handles all of the United States' brands. Stellantis is also restarting its Street and Racing Technology (SRT) division, which will bring in engineers across several brands to put more design capability into the high-performance divisions. Kuniskis declared, 'SRT is another box we needed to check. We're getting the band back together.' And Kuniskis has an ambitious schedule ahead of him, with plans to bring out 25 new products over the next year and a half. And Not a Moment Too Soon This comes at a time when Stellantis is in desperate need of something, anything, that will inject new life into the company and new cash into its coffers. Stellantis' second-quarter sales figures demonstrated as much when they were released. Stellantis' quarterly sales dropped 10% in the United States for the second quarter of 2025, reaching just 309,976 cars sold. This is actually something of a pattern at Stellantis, as reports noted that sales were down 15% against the year prior in the second quarter of 2024 as well. First-quarter sales for 2025 were down as well, down 12% against the first quarter of 2024. This is, hopefully, a development Kuniskis can turn around with his new command position over the North American brands. Is Stellantis Stock a Good Buy Right Now? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on STLA stock based on four Buys, 10 Holds, and one Sell assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. After a 48.57% loss in its share price over the past year, the average STLA price target of $11.65 per share implies 13.49% upside potential.

Weak Fundamentals Facilitate Shrewd Options Trade on Intel Stock (INTC)
Weak Fundamentals Facilitate Shrewd Options Trade on Intel Stock (INTC)

Business Insider

time28 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Weak Fundamentals Facilitate Shrewd Options Trade on Intel Stock (INTC)

On the surface, semiconductor giant Intel (INTC) presents a risky narrative. Sure, INTC stock gained 14% since the start of the year, an impressive performance given that the benchmark S&P 500 is up around 5% during the same period. However, over the past 52 weeks, the security has declined by more than 26%, which is well below that of semiconductor leaders like Nvidia (NVDA). Don't Miss TipRanks' Half-Year Sale Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week. Adding to the complex narrative, tense relations between the U.S. and China cloud the fundamental case for INTC stock. Recently, President Donald Trump has stepped up export controls to block the Asian juggernaut's access to advanced semiconductors. Combined with the Trump administration's tough trade policies, particularly regarding tariffs, the situation is challenging for Intel. Last year, China accounted for 29% of Intel's revenue, exposing the company to foreign policy dynamics. Still, bullish investors may be able to read between the lines. Although Trump's tariffs have rattled Wall Street, he has also consistently backed off from going full bore. Impolitely, this back-and-forth process has earned the president the nickname 'TACO' — 'Trump always chickens out,' they say. From a practical perspective, the cloud hanging over INTC stock may be a Bullish opportunity, as there's reason to believe that cooler heads will (eventually) prevail. To amplify gains from this speculative position, traders may consider diving into the options market. The Art of Probability Helps Investors Capitalize on INTC While scrolling through various financial publications can provide color and context for a particular enterprise, this approach lacks specificity. Options traders require a thesis to cover not only the magnitude component (y-axis) but also the time element (x-axis). Being correct on one but not the other leads to a suboptimal transaction, to put it mildly. Stated differently, traders must view the market in probabilistic terms, and it's here that the game of blackjack — and the concept of card counting — becomes supremely relevant. Professional blackjack players will keep a running count of the card values dealt. Low cards are assigned a value of +1, neutral cards are assigned a value of 0, and high cards are assigned a value of -1. Essentially, the idea is to raise one's bet when the odds favor the player and reduce bets when the odds favor the dealer. When done correctly, this approach provides a slight but tangible edge for the card counter, making it a superior framework compared to simply guessing randomly. However, making the strategy work requires a player to calculate two types of probabilities: derivative and conditional. The baseline success ratio is derived from the Gaussian (or standard) distribution, which indicates the likelihood of success based on all aggregate hands. However, the Markovian (or conditional) odds show the possibility of success for a specific hand. It's possible to apply this same game-theory logic to the stock market but with a catch: it's difficult, if not impossible, to conduct Markovian analyses on continuous scalar signals like stock prices. Therefore, this metric should be converted into discrete states, just like how a pro blackjack player would approach the problem. Subsequently, this is the reason why market breadth — or t he sequence of accumulative and distributive sessions — is such a vital measurement metric. As a representation of demand, market breadth is effectively binary, facilitating easy categorization and quantification. These attributes serve as the backbone of past analogs for the formulation of probabilistic analysis. Plotting a Bullish Trading Strategy for INTC Stock With Tuesday's solid performance, INTC stock is on track this week to print a 6-4-U sequence: six up weeks, four down weeks, with a positive trajectory across the 10-week period. Admittedly, converting INTC's price action into a simple binary sequence compresses its magnitude dynamism. Still, the benefit to the trader is that the process segregates price action into distinct, discrete behavioral events. These events can then be tracked to determine transitional probabilities. For instance, using the above approach, the trader can identify that the 6-4-U sequence has flashed 46 times since January 2019. In 56.52% of cases, the price action for the following week (which would coincide with the business week beginning July 7) results in upside, with a median return of 2.47%. Assuming INTC closes around $23 by the end of this week, if the implications of the 6-4-U sequence materialize, the security could reach around $23.57 relatively quickly. And if the bulls maintain control of the market, a push toward $24 over the next few weeks wouldn't be out of the question. Finally, what makes this setup so intriguing is that, as a baseline, the chance that INTC stock will rise on any given week is only 51.03%. Therefore, an incentive exists to consider a debit-based options strategy. Based on the market intelligence above, an aggressive yet rational trade would be the 22.50/23.50 bull call spread, expiring on July 18. This transaction involves buying the $22.50 call and simultaneously selling the $23.50 call, for a net debit paid of $52, representing the maximum potential loss in the trade. Should INTC stock rise through the short strike price ($23.50) at expiration, the maximum reward is $48, a payout of over 92%. Is Intel a Buy, Sell, or Hold? Turning to Wall Street, INTC stock has a Hold consensus rating based on one Buy, 26 Holds, and four Sell ratings over the past three months. The average INTC stock price target is $21.30, implying a downside risk of 6.78% over the next year. Harnessing Mathematical Probability to Trade Intel Stock While Intel's fundamentals may not appear especially compelling at first glance, the political backdrop may prove less detrimental than many fear. Adding to the bullish case for INTC stock is a statistical perspective: given the nature of Intel's demand profile, there's a reasonable basis for expecting potential upside. For bullish speculators, this could present an interesting opportunity in the options market.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store