Latest news with #TransatlanticAlliance
Spectator
18-07-2025
- Business
- Spectator
Germany has become a useful ally for Britain
Yesterday the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz visited London for the first time since he took office in May. He and the prime minister have met on a number of occasions, and although the two lawyers are different characters – Sir Keir Starmer, the stiff, soi disant progressive human rights barrister; Merz, the abrasive, hard-nosed corporate counsel – they have forged a functional relationship. But this was Merz on Starmer's home ground. The government has put a great deal of effort into bespoke bilateral relationships. Defence secretary John Healey and the German defence minister Boris Pistorius signed the Trinity House Agreement last October, and there have also been various kinds of arrangements put in place with Estonia, Ukraine, Norway, Qatar and France, as well as the outline of a trade agreement with the United States. This week, Starmer built on the Trinity House Agreement to agree to a treaty with Germany on friendship and bilateral cooperation; this has been dubbed, as if Downing Street were sweeping a Monopoly board, the 'Kensington Treaty'. It is the first bilateral treaty the UK and Germany have concluded since the second world war, and it covers a broad range of policy areas: diplomacy, security and development, defence cooperation, internal security, justice and migration, economic growth, resilience and competitiveness, open and resilient societies, and climate, energy, nature, environment and agriculture. Given the current geopolitical situation, the defence provisions have received particular attention, and it is worth trying to unpick the details. I've been to enough international assemblies to recognise the florid, padded language of diplomacy, but it is fair to say that the Kensington Treaty would have benefited from a good but firm editor. It adds very little to the sum of human knowledge or happiness to declare that the UK and Germany are 'inspired by a common will to address the momentous new challenges to Euro-Atlantic security' or that they are 'reaffirming their ironclad commitment to the Transatlantic Alliance as the bedrock of their security, based on shared values'. Peeling away the ambient verbiage, however, there are some concrete measures. Both parties will improve their 'military interoperability, interchangeability and integration', meaning that they will be more closely aligned in equipment, doctrine and methodology; these are important considerations when contemplating fighting as part of a multinational coalition. There is also a commitment to closer industrial cooperation, again partly reflecting the fact that many of our most significant military platforms are now multinational: Eurofighter Typhoon, the F-35 Lightning, the Airbus Voyager tanker aircraft and A400M transports, the Boxer and Ajax armoured fighting vehicles, the RCH 155 self-propelled howitzer, the New Medium Helicopter programme. Britain and Germany will also continue jointly to develop a new deep precision strike missile and work on uncrewed aerial systems. It is interesting that the treaty also contains a provision for the UK and Germany to work more closely on defence exports through the UK-Germany Defence Industry Forum. Under the treaty, the UK will join Germany, France and Spain in the agreement on defence export controls first established in September 2021, which will align the export control regimes of all four countries. With this in place, the UK and Germany can undertake shared procurement and export promotion in the hope of increasing sales of platforms like the Typhoon, the A400M and Boxer while also making efficiency savings through streamlining sales processes. There may be new customers for the Typhoon in the Middle East and Asia, which could be critical for UK industry; BAE Systems Warton recently completed the last Typhoon on its order books, and there is a danger of loss of skills and capability if new buyers are not found. For the UK, Germany may be a very useful ally in these areas at the moment. While the government in London has still not set out any robust targets for increasing defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035, a target agreed at the Nato summit in the Hague last month, Germany is going all in. Berlin will borrow €400 billion (£347 billion) over the next five years, in which time it intends to spend €649 billion (£563 billion) overall on defence, reaching 3.5 per cent of GDP on core military expenditure by 2029. Currently, the UK cannot dream of matching that largesse. The current defence budget is 2.6 per cent of GDP if the intelligence agencies are included and will still not reach £80 billion a year by 2027/28. Ministers cannot even give any certainty or timeframe for reaching three per cent of GDP. Perhaps a rising tide really does lift all boats. If the UK can partner with the free-spending Germans to sell more military equipment built wholly or partially in Britain, that can only be good. Nevertheless, with the Kensington Treaty now in place, Starmer and his government must make sure that we keep pace with our allies and do not find ourselves financially embarrassed. A great deal of talk has been talked on defence: now we need to look very closely at the walking.
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Has the Trump-Putin bromance finally run its course?
'I'm not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now,' Trump said, expressing his frustration with the Russian leader over the war in Ukraine. 'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin … He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' It may not have been Churchillian in oratorical flourish, and with Trump everything is capable of being reversed in hours, but possibly, just possibly, the rupture between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has happened. If so it is a transformatory moment, and a vindication for both Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he arrives in Rome for the annual Ukraine reconstruction conference and for those others, notably the British and the French governments, who have patiently helped the scales to fall from Trump's eyes about Putin's true intentions. At long last and after many false starts, the US president seems to have accepted he is unpersuadable on ending the war. With Trump the parting of the ways is unlikely to be complete, or permanent. Above all Trump's disappointment in Putin may not translate into the kind of practical financial and support Ukraine and Europe has been seeking, but America First is no longer Russia First. It has been a long process with many low points. In February it seemed as if the whole transatlantic alliance was on the brink of collapse, as Trump initiated direct talks with Putin, and ordered Ukraine to make concessions. On 19 February he echoed Kremlin talking points in a post to his Truth Social network that called Zelenskyy a 'dictator' and warned him time was running out for Ukraine: 'Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the US into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn't be won […] A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.' A week later at the UN general assembly in New York, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's invasion of Ukraine and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity – voting the same way as Russia, North Korea and Belarus. Veteran UK diplomats were then left shaken when the US drafted and voted for a security council resolution that called for an end to the conflict but contained no criticism of Russia. The UK and France both abstained after their attempts to amend the wording were vetoed. Later that week came the televised blowup with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, followed by the hasty embrace of the Ukrainian leader in London by Keir Starmer and King Charles. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, cheered on the White House from Moscow. 'How Trump and Vance exercised restraint and didn't punch this scumbag is a miracle of restraint,' she posted on Telegram. All the while, the US negotiator Steve Witkoff revealed a depth of ignorance about the history of Ukraine and a sympathy with Putin's claims the war had been provoked. Frequently he tipped over from trying to understand the Russian perspective into siding with it. In an interview with Tucker Carlson that truly alarmed European diplomats, Witkoff asked: 'Why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose, exactly? They don't need to absorb Ukraine. That would be like occupying Gaza … But the Russians also have what they want. They've gotten – they've reclaimed these five regions. They have Crimea, and they've gotten what they want. So why do they need more?' Witkoff also delivered a portrait commissioned by Putin of a bloodied Trump, fist clenched, after last year's assassination attempt. Putin revealed he had prayed for Trump, and on 14 June he remembered the president's birthday with a phone call. Yet by the end of March, Trump's frustrations with Putin started to show, as the Russian leader refused to commit to the 30-day ceasefire he had proposed and that Ukraine had quickly accepted. On 1 April the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, returned from eight hours playing golf with Trump to report for the first time that he was losing patience with Russia. Still, even by the end of May it was clear that the process of Trump's patience wearing thin had an almost infinite quality. After fruitless diplomatic exchanges in Istanbul, continued evasions about a ceasefire and escalating strikes on Ukraine, Trump poured out his frustration on Truth Social warning that Putin was 'playing with fire' and declaring in the Oval Office on 28 May that he would know within a fortnight if 'Putin is tapping us along'. This article includes content hosted on We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as the provider may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'. Mid-June came, and still no change in strategy. A confluence of events may however have tipped Trump in recent weeks. The Nato summit on 25 June was gift-wrapped by Europe as a triumph for Trump on defence spending, making him better disposed to listen to Europe's security concerns. 'There is a line between flattery and self-abasement, and we happily crossed it,' said one European diplomat. The Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, called Trump 'Daddy'. With his ego massaged, Trump sounded like a man less willing to be distracted by Putin. 'I consider Putin a person that's been misguided. I'm very surprised actually. I thought we would have had that war settled,' he told the media at the summit, revealing that Putin had called and offered to intervene with Iran. 'I said: 'No, no, you help me get a settlement with you, with Russia,' and I think we are going to be doing that.' But the next call between the two on 4 July did not go well either, and it seemed as if Putin had determined he could extract more by war than by keeping Trump sweet. The Kremlin was uncompromising: 'Our president said that Russia will achieve its goals, that is, the elimination of the well-known root causes that led to the current state of affairs,' said Yuri Ushakov, a close adviser to the Russian leader. 'Russia will not back down from these goals.' The deadly nightly Russian assaults on Ukraine (the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, said Russia had launched 20,000 drone strikes this year) could not be kept from US screens and, finally, Trump was not happy when it emerged last week that the Pentagon was withholding a shipment of arms earmarked for Ukraine and no one informed the White House. The defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, looked distinctly uncomfortable. For Ukraine's supporters in Congress and in Europe, the issue now is the extent to which Trump's frustration with Russia transmits into practical support for Kyiv. The true test will come if the crushing sanctions tabled months ago by the Republican senator Lindsey Graham are finally given the presidential go-ahead. The measures would impose a 500% tariff on imports from any country that purchases Russian uranium, gas or oil, with India and China the worst affected. Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the US, has been working behind the scenes to refine Graham's blunderbuss so the proposed secondary sanctions do not catch European firms in their net. Graham is now proposing a carve-out to his bill to spare countries who still import Russian gas, but have supported Ukraine in its three-year war with the Kremlin's military. The bill also gives Trump the right to waive for 180 days sanctions on countries purchasing Russian oil or uranium and, in its revised form, a second 180-day waiver is proposed. 'We're moving,' Graham said after Trump's diatribe against Putin, adding that Trump 'told me it's time to move so we're going to move'. For Ukrainians on the frontline, they can only hope a turning point has come.
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Has the Trump-Putin bromance finally run its course?
'I'm not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now,' Trump said, expressing his frustration with the Russian leader over the war in Ukraine. 'We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin … He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' It may not have been Churchillian in oratorical flourish, and with Trump everything is capable of being reversed in hours, but possibly, just possibly, the rupture between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has happened. If so it is a transformatory moment, and a vindication for both Volodymyr Zelenskyy as he arrives in Rome for the annual Ukraine reconstruction conference and for those others, notably the British and the French governments, that have patiently helped the scales to fall from Trump's eyes about Putin's true intentions. At long last and after many false starts, the US president seems to have accepted he is unpersuadable on ending the war. With Trump the separation is unlikely to be complete, or permanent, and above all Trump's disappointment in Putin may not translate into the kind of practical financial and support Ukraine and Europe has been seeking, but America First is no longer Russia First. It has been a long process with many low points. In February it seemed as if the whole transatlantic alliance was on the brink of collapse, as Trump initiated direct talks with Putin, and ordered Ukraine to make concessions. On 19 February he echoed Kremlin talking point in a post to his Truth Social network that called Zelenskyy a 'dictator' and warned him time was running out for Ukraine: 'Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the US into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn't be won […] A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.' A week later at the UN general assembly in New York, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's invasion of Ukraine and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity – voting the same way as Russia, North Korea and Belarus. Veteran UK diplomats were then left shaken when the US then drafted and voted for a security council resolution that called for an end to the conflict but contained no criticism of Russia. The UK and France both abstained after their attempts to amend the wording were vetoed. Later that week came the televised blow-out with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, followed by the hasty embrace of the Ukrainian leader in London by Keir Starmer and King Charles. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, cheered on the White House from Moscow. 'How Trump and Vance exercised restraint and didn't punch this scumbag is a miracle of restraint,' she posted on Telegram. All the while US negotiator Steve Witkoff revealed a depth of ignorance about the history of Ukraine and a sympathy with Putin's claims the war had been provoked. Frequently he tipped over from trying to understand the Russian perspective into siding with it. In an interview with Tucker Carlson that truly alarmed European diplomats, Witkoff asked: 'Why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose, exactly? They don't need to absorb Ukraine. That would be like occupying Gaza … But the Russians also have what they want. They've gotten – they've reclaimed these five regions. They have Crimea, and they've gotten what they want. So why do they need more?' Witkoff also delivered a portrait commissioned by Putin of a bloodied Trump, fist-clenched, after last year's assassination attempt. Putin revealed he had prayed for Trump, and on 14 June he remembered the president's birthday with a phone call. Yet by the end of March Trump's frustrations with Putin started to show as the Russian leader refused to commit to the 30-day ceasefire he had proposed and that Ukraine had quickly accepted. On 1 April the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, returned from eight hours playing golf with Trump to report for the first time that he was losing patience with Russia. Still, even by the end of May it was clear that the process of Trump's patience wearing thin had an almost infinite quality. After fruitless diplomatic exchanges in Istanbul, continued evasions about a ceasefire and escalating strikes on Ukraine, Trump poured out his frustration on Truth Social warning that Putin was 'playing with fire' and declaring in the Oval Office on 28 May that he would know within a fortnight if 'Putin is tapping us along'. This article includes content hosted on We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as the provider may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'. Mid-June came, and still no change in strategy. A confluence of events may however have tipped Trump in recent weeks. The Nato summit on 25 June was gift-wrapped by Europe as a triumph for Trump on defence spending, making him better disposed to listen to Europe's security concerns. 'There is a line between flattery and self-abasement, and we happily crossed it,' said one European diplomat. The Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, called Trump 'Daddy'. With his ego massaged, Trump sounded like a man less willing to be distracted by Putin. 'I consider Putin a person that's been misguided. I'm very surprised actually. I thought we would have had that war settled,' he told the media at the summit, revealing that Putin had called and offered to intervene with Iran. 'I said: 'No, no, you help me get a settlement with you, with Russia,' and I think we are going to be doing that.' But the next call between the two on 4 July did not go well either, and it seemed as if Putin had determined he could extract more by war than by keeping Trump sweet. The Kremlin was uncompromising: 'Our president said that Russia will achieve its goals, that is, the elimination of the well-known root causes that led to the current state of affairs,' said Yuri Ushakov, a close adviser to the Russian leader. 'Russia will not back down from these goals.' The deadly nightly Russian assaults on Ukraine (the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, said Russia had launched 20,000 drone strikes this year) could not be kept from US screens and, finally, Trump was not happy when it emerged last week that the Pentagon was withholding a shipment of arms earmarked for Ukraine and no one informed the White House. The defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, looked distinctly uncomfortable. For Ukraine's supporters in Congress and in Europe, the issue now is the extent to which Trump's frustration with Russia transmits into practical support for Kyiv. The true test will come if the crushing sanctions tabled months ago by Republican senator Lindsey Graham are finally given presidential go-ahead. The measure would impose a 500% tariff on imports from any nation that purchases Russian uranium, gas or oil, with India and China the worst affected. Lord Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the US, has been working behind the scenes to refine Graham's blunderbuss so the proposed secondary sanctions do not catch European firms in their net. Graham is now proposing a carve-out to his bill to spare countries who still import Russian gas, but have supported Ukraine in their three-year war with the Kremlin's military. The bill also give Trump the right to waive sanctions on nations purchasing Russian oil or uranium for 180 days and, in its revised form, a second 180-day waiver is proposed. 'We're moving,' Graham said after Trump's diatribe against Putin, adding that Trump 'told me it's time to move so we're going to move'. For Ukrainians on the frontline, they can only hope a turning point has come.
South China Morning Post
08-05-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
The US should take heed – superpowers rarely fall overnight
The West is at an inflection point. The rise, fall and transformation of civilisations are often traced to the decisions of their leaders. US President Donald Trump's policies and rhetoric are accelerating the unravelling of the Western world order, echoing the mistakes of past rulers whose unwise actions led to irreversible decline. Advertisement After World War II, the Western world order was built on globalisation and international law. But as global competition intensifies, the concepts that once enforced Western hegemony are being abandoned. Trump and his advisers are desperately trying to stay ahead of civilisational decline. Trump's tariffs , imposed even on America's closest allies , have undermined the fundamentals of US and Western economic dominance. The safety of US bonds and currency – long considered unassailable – has been called into question, shaking global confidence . The tariffs are expected to stoke inflation and may trigger a recession. The Trump administration's verbal attacks on Nato allies have turned the US from the Western world's greatest asset into its biggest liability. The transatlantic alliance, a cornerstone of Western security, is fraying. Favourable attitudes towards the US have plummeted across Europe. Trump's denial of facts, embrace of nationalism and undermining of democratic norms have accelerated a loss of faith in the Western project. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte (left) speaks to the press as he meets US President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, on March 13. Photo: AFP History is replete with examples of empires undone by their leaders' hubris, short-sightedness or divisiveness. Diocletian's reforms were meant to stabilise the Roman empire but sowed the seeds of future turmoil. Administrative division created burdens and fragmentation, weakening central authority and hastening the empire's fall. Trump's policies of stoking internal division and focusing on perceived external threats mirror these fatal errors.
Irish Examiner
29-04-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
100 days into Trump's presidency, he's causing global chaos
In the 100 days that Donald Trump has been back in the White House, gold has risen to its highest value since the mid-1980s. Long considered the ultimate safe haven asset, it is the go-to commodity in times of crisis or extreme uncertainty. By any measure, the world, or our part of it at least, is currently in that zone. Trump Term Two already seems a lot longer than 100 days. By most measures it is difficult to remember the world prior to January 20 BC (before chaos.) No leader in modern US history has torn up the rule book and simultaneously commanded the narrative in the way that the 47th president has, and that includes his earlier stint as the 45th incumbent. Those that voted for him (both times) were eager for change. Some particularly wanted a 'Disruptor in Chief' who would challenge the stale, self-interested political status quo and implement and further a Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda. The loyal MAGA base will be high-fiving themselves as the former reality television star has blown the doors off every convention, norm and boundary associated with the most powerful job in the world. The 100-day benchmark of presidential achievement dates back to the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the US was gripped by the 1930s Great Depression. The nation was in a state of deep fear and insecurity, and observers were desperate for any sign of progress or improvement on FDR's watch. Hence, the 100-day touch-point, arbitrary as it is, remains a significantly symbolic moment. In the case of Trump the Sequel, the substance has matched the style. 'World disorder' Firstly, consider the international arena. In April 2025, Ursula von der Leyen, not known for her dramatic hyperbole, declared that the "world order is becoming a world disorder". Clearly, not all responsibility for this can be landed at Trump's feet. However, what is categorically undeniable is that the Transatlantic Alliance as we have known it for nigh on 80 years is no longer intact, for the foreseeable future at least. Listening to JD Vance's speech at the February Munich Security Conference informed us of the stark reality that the US, in its current incarnation, is not a reliable defence partner. Such a development significantly undermines the NATO alliance 'Musketeer' clause that is Article 5, which guarantees that an attack on one member is an attack on all. The long-standing US security pledge looks shakier by the day. We are used to rogue actors such as Vladimir Putin disregarding the international order and the sovereignty of smaller nations. When the Commander in Chief of the world's largest arsenal extols the virtues of Manifest Destiny, a 19th century vision of an expansionist US acquiring new hemispheric territories, those words carry a heavy weight. Residents of Panama, Greenland and Canada listen with concern. Ukrainians and Gazans can take no comfort in the president's words or deeds. Trump-onomics Then there is Trump-onomics, a realm which merges the domestic and international. Many Americans will be breathing a sigh of relief that their nation is no longer inclined to act as the world's policeman and foot the enormous associated defence bills. International trade wars, however, can have a nasty impact on voters' pockets. Again, there is a domestic political divide with regard to support for Trump's ultra-protectionist 'Liberation Day' tariff bonanza. His actions have weakened the US economy, and with that comes political and reputational damage. It is a truly odd state of affairs when the markets rein in the executive, as was the case in recent weeks. The administration's drastic tactics of imposing the largest single round of tariffs in over 70 years have upended trade relations, not least with Beijing, and wiped $8.27 trillion from the stock market over a four-day period. Yale University's Budget Lab estimates that the tariffs (which are a tax on US imports) could cost the average American family $3800 per year. Trump's 'achievements' And so, beyond the MAGA-whooping, liberal hand-wringing and Democrat Party radio silence, what has the 47th president achieved to date via legislative and executive means? The more conventional route of governance is perhaps surprisingly the least utilised. With a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, the potential exists to make legislative hay, but to date Trump has only signed five bills into law. For comparison, he signed 124 during the same period of his first administration. In the presidential realm, however, there has been much action. According to the US Federal Register, by late April Trump had signed 137 executive orders. These are directives signed by the president ordering the federal government to act, without the involvement of Congress. At times these actions have brought a sense of Term One déjà vu as the US withdrew (again) from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as (left to right) Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon look on after signing executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on April 23. Photo:Then there were the more 2025-centered priorities, negatively impacting among others government employees, immigrants, teachers, students, international aid recipients and transgender Americans. None of this is surprising as the mandate was set out both in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 and Trump's own Agenda 47 plan. The chaos of Trump Term One and then lack of any prepared transition was replaced this time round by a group of experienced and motivated MAGA faithfuls. The scope for error and delay was therefore vastly reduced. Meanwhile, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) task force was established, with a remit to gut the 'Deep State'. Using a cudgel rather than a scalpel, the maverick billionaire's aggressive approach has seen thousands of US government workers fired, laid off or encouraged to resign from their posts. If planning for distant risk (say, a pandemic or economic crash) requires high levels of government expertise, the Trump administration has taken extraordinary steps to hollow out institutional knowledge and memory to ensure that there is little capacity to proactively manage any crisis. Here, we see an inversion of the FDR presidency, which took a radical approach to leadership almost a century ago and increased the scope and purpose of the US government to unprecedented levels. In just 100 days we have witnessed the rise of ultra-protectionism, a wanton desire to increase America's landmass, disdain for allies, contempt for Ukraine, indifference to Palestine, derision of science, climate, education and media, along with an ongoing disregard for the rule of law. Amongst the tumult, America's adversaries watch and wait. China, we are told, thinks in centuries and continents. Constitutional constraints withstanding, Trump will be gone in 1360 days. Potential for irreparable damage to the once 'indispensable' nation is vast, pending and laden with consequence. So, buckle up. And buy gold. Clodagh Harrington is a lecturer in US History and Politics at University College Cork. She is co-presenter of the monthly US politics podcast A Chicken in Every Pot . Read More Collapse of USAID leaves a gap in our huge fight against malaria
