I have never had problems with the NATO Treaty in the way I did with the EU Treaty because the NATO Treaty does not require a NATO member to do anything. There is no supranational court, fines and enforcement. It is a best endeavours voluntary agreement between its members. As we have seen the club fee is set at 2% of GDP spending on defence but lots of members have not implemented this. In the EU the UK was often forced to Ā enact laws and make payments it disagreed with under force of EU law.
The most famous Nato Article 5 says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. All are requested to respond against the aggressor. There is no mandated minimum response for each, and a member may decline to join a war. When the Falkland Islands were illegally invaded by Argentina the US as the leader of NATO made clear she would not help us fight and win the war. Spain a NATO member was very hostile to us. The Nato Treaty did not cover the Falklands.
Less well known is the all important Article 3 which requires each NATO member to take strong steps to look after their own defence as the UK was expected to Ā do in the Falklands. This Article has not been well respected by some European members of NATO this century. Countries have let their militaries wither , relying on the prop of mutual aid.
The European end of NATO has seen plenty of action by generous numbers of senior officers meeting to co ordinate, wargame , intertwine supply systems and develop mutual dependence. There has been less concentration Ā on building larger and more effective national forces so European NATO has more ability to move large concentrations Ā of force quickly. Too much inter dependence can get in the way and slow things down. The EU now is also complicating things by introducing EU Ā led missions and EU joint procurements.
NATO was planned to handle continued US occupation Ā of Germany alongside the Ā UK, France and Russia post war, with the disarmament of Germany. It then defined its role to defend western Europe against the USSR with Germany as a member. Since the end of the cold war it has sought various missions in the Balkans.
If the US wishes to cut herself off from European conflicts there is nothing in the NATO Treaty to prevent Ā her. In 1914 and 1939 US opinion was strongly against intervening in European wars. The UK fought alone after the fall of France until the Japanese forced the US into the 2 nd WW.
History tells us the UK has to look to our own defences, geared to safeguarding our islands and ensuring greater self reliance in industrial and food production.
March 4, 2025
Unfortunately the misunderstanding of the NATO Treaty by some members causes them to swagger about thinking that they are the USA, and provoking other countries into wars which the USA will fight for them.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO but believes that if it was everything would change, however it has multiple Mutual Defence Treaties with individual countries, including the U.K.
Why donāt they go to defend Ukraine as announced? Because the whole charade is to fool the Yanks into starting WWIII.
āAn evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashesā Sun Tsu – the European Globalist warmongers believe they can burn the USA to the ground instead, or the whole world – if it canāt be theirs they want it destroyed.
March 4, 2025
‘..if it canāt be theirs they want it destroyed.’ Putin’s actions in Ukraine described succinctly.
March 4, 2025
To answer the question – No.
So here’s another, the myth of mutual defence of relying on the USA has evaporated, so what are we going to do? Starmer is saying the right things, as he has before, but will he now DO what he says this time, and will any European leader do likewise?
March 4, 2025
No sure he is saying the right things, but anyway he is saying things without having any serious defence or attack capabilities. A pointless bluff.
We cannot do defence and have a sound economy with mad Edās net zero and Reevesās mad economic agenda.
See āWe Can’t Even Defend Kent Let Alone Kyiv ā recent video David Starkey.
March 4, 2025
So about three businesses the size of my UK trading one (with 18 staff) are needed just to pay enough taxes for Hoyleās jollies, salary, accomodation, pension, net zero taxes and expenses each year. That is tax, Ni x 2, income tax, council taxā¦ But of course my staff still needing healthcare, defence, schools, policeā¦ not just the wonderful āservicesā of the dire anti-free speech Hoyle!
March 4, 2025
Parking Net Zero aside, for a minute, European stocks have gone up on the news of Europe manufacturing more high tech defence weaponry and military tech in general (as a response to President Trump pulling America out of Europe in terms of defence).
March 4, 2025
I do not see how we can re-arm without reviving our heavy industry. To do that we need to reverse Net Zero – frack, drill and if neccessary mine. Cheap energy is key. Even then, I’m not sure how much of the damage already done to our economy can now be reversed.
We also need to sort out the benefit system. I beleive in Pareto. Start with the 20% of largest/longest claiments and have them fomally reviewed, including a medical panel if required. Give support to the genuine and remove it from the idle. Introduce formal reviews of anyone on out-of-work benefts for more than 2 years in parallel with this. Change the tax system to encourage work, not avoid it.
Take the CS to back to pre-pandemic staffing levels as an absolute minimum. MoD staffing for instance should never more than one quarter of active military personal levels. A metric like that would remove 30,000 CS currently in Whitehall, taking them down to ‘just’ 20,000. I can’t think of any large private company that needs 20,000 ‘Admin’ staff to operate successfully.
Do much more, Do it with Less, Do it better & Do it Faster should be our new mantra. If we are not going to put our economy on a war footing, then at least get our long term strategic thinking on one.
March 4, 2025
Re-arming is more about High Tech than Heavy Industry. And perhaps diving into Quantum Tech (big leap I know) to shoot down dangerous missiles (and drones) flying at the UK at a million miles an hour. That’s going to take the types of brains that created the nuclear bomb rather than mechanics who work in heavy industry.
(Which is connected to why I keep saying UK needs to focus more on its High Tech industry including considering Cambridge (and then Oxford) into the world’s second Silicon Valley. With Cambridge focused on physical hardware from servers to developing tech to protect our country from hostile missiles and Oxford more on software and digital marketing and creative stuff (and Leeds / Sheffield are more on trad heavy industry).
March 4, 2025
IanT,
Agree completely; lots of common sense which appears to be about as rare as ‘rare earth minerals’ for our governments over the last 20 years. Isn’t it odd; all they had to do was the simple stuff well, no fancy projects or silly social engineering. We used to have the best civil servants in the world, now they’re more worried about pronouns and trace gasses than feeding and defending the population.
March 4, 2025
Why do you think that mutuel defence is a myth. You think that if Kent was bombed the USA would not come to our defence?
You think that because NATO has not come to Ukraineās defence, Ukraine not being a member – that renders āmutual defenceā a myth?
March 4, 2025
Without the USA there is no NATO. Europe since the end of the cold war has concentrated on providing welfare instead of maintaining a strong defence. It has been obvious for many years that there are existential threats from multiple actors around the world but Europe has left those to the Americans.
Trump is correct in stating that the US taxpayer shouldn’t bear responsibility for European defence. The likes of Ireland and Spain contribute little or nothing to their defence.
Trump has done us all a favour even if it only gets rid of he stupid net zero scam
March 4, 2025
I think President Trump has definitely done as a favour for sure – but it’s not just about defence, also the economy, as a stronger military tech industry will also boost our economy. Problem is he’s gone to the opposite extreme of the democrats. Politics is about being firm but taking a balanced, sensible approach. Same with business and the military. Trump is just too up and down / all over the place / highly insecure to be a strong leader (and Putin just too much of a sociopath – or Machiavellian as described in times past).
March 4, 2025
There is a stated intention of ramping up the Military Industrial Complex, but Europe has no energy with which to do this. Who are these idiot brokers buying stock on this shaky ground?
March 4, 2025
ā History tells us the UK has to look to our own defences, geared to safeguarding our islands and ensuring greater self reliance in industrial and food production.ā
Recent history tells us we are doing none of the above.
Anyone can arrive in the UK without permission and there is no reaction.
Industry has been abandoned. We are now a country that concentrates on service industries. Food production is discouraged in pursuit of Net Zero.
Starmer can say what he likes about supporting Ukraine but his underlying policies now make that impossible.
March 4, 2025
Lynn,
I read your posts regularly and it is right, today, to openly recognize your consistent assessments of reality and to express appreciation for them. Let us hope that the UK Leadership (or its non-existence) somehow also falls into line with Trump’s drive for peace in Ukraine. Without US backing, regardless of what the UK or Europe do, Zelenskyy can do nothing to recover the Ukranian territory already lost to Russia. The only hope for peace is for him to agree to Trump’s terms, including the minerals agreement, or get out of the way so that so that an alternative Ukranian leader can.
March 4, 2025
This is about much,much more than just Ukraine.The Russians,the most providential of nations, have been clear about it for a long time:-
Sergey Karaganov,Head of the Council for Foreign & Defence Policy,right at the outbreak of the war:”We are living in biblical times.We will defeat the west in Ukraine which will provide for a peaceful withdrawal of the USA.Europe meanwhile will move to the sidelines of history.”
Vladimir Putin,Valdai sumit,7/11/24:”The moment of truth is coming.The former structure of the world is irrevocably disappearing,we can say it has already gone,and a serious irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new one.”
Exciting,exhilarating times!As Lenin very famously wrote:”There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen.”
March 4, 2025
What’s exciting you about it, Mitchel? What change is going to be beneficial to the UK?
What truth are you exhilarated by?
March 4, 2025
So Russia will accept peace for moving their border to the end of occupied territory? Ukraine give up natural resources to settle for the wasteland that Putin is creating. Until the next time….
March 4, 2025
Ukraine will be a neutral country. Whatās wrong with that? Itās their security guarantee.. it suited Ireland and Switzerland and many of the Noris countries very well.
March 5, 2025
but by there choice and not others design
March 4, 2025
Correct …its not peace talks; its surrender talks
March 4, 2025
I am grateful for your support for my arguments. I watch these poor people dragged off the streets with blood curdling screaming – Ukrainians, and to think that we fund that and feel good about it makes me sick.
Trump will get peace one way or the other – a just peace treaty I.e native Russians protected from the moron cocaine addict Zelensky, or stopping the weapons causing an unconditional surrender sooner rather than later.
The 87,000 Ukrainians waving flags all over Britain while drawing benefits could go and fight, but they donāt feel that strongly do they?
Just that when WWII broke out Enoch Powell rushed home from abroad and signed up as a private. They had to conscript in Rhodesia because ALL the men signed up and they needed to keep some home to keep the country ticking over. My father and his year were pushed through the Training Ship at pace so they could replace so many seamen who were lost.
These virtue signalling Ukrainians donāt fall into that category, why donāt we offer them passage home so they can bolster their heroic army?
March 4, 2025
Why are you so dismissive of Ukraine?
March 4, 2025
“The UK fought alone….” …except for the entire British Empire, then the major power on the planet.
The “plucky little Britain alone” myth has done Britain much harm. It wasn’t little and it wasn’t alone. It was extremely powerful and of consequence which is why it was able to seek support from the USA…it had something to give in return, albeit to its long term disadvantage.
The encouragement of the “right will eventually beat might” view which is now common is utterly misconcieved. Right requires might to win. In any event wars aren’t fought for right but to protect and further national interest.
March 4, 2025
@MickC. Very true.
One “something” we to give in return for US entry to WW2 was the ending of what remained of our superpower status.
There are a few parallels to current conflicts/power games. The US gave Britain a huge amount of weapons for free. We supplied manpower until it looked like we could lose. Unlike now, the US fully entered the war, at the cost of many American lives. After victory it gave a $3.75bn interest-bearing loan to Britain for our rebuild, which contributed to us devaluing the pound and the dollar’s definitive rise to global reserve currency. We have a great deal to thank the US for, but there was a “deal” somewhere in there too (I don’t begrudge them it).
March 4, 2025
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/the-old-lion-1941.html
“And now the old lion with her lion cubs at her side stands alone against hunters who are armed with deadly weapons and impelled by desperate and destructive rage.”
March 4, 2025
Minus the sepoys of the Indian Army*,British imperial power on land was effectively dissolved.
(*573,000 at November,1918;205,000 at the outbreak of WWII,rising to 2.5m)
March 4, 2025
We need to put defence of the realm at the top of the things we should do. NATO is too large with too many countries as members who are half-hearted. When it was set up it was after a terrible war which the participants had taken part in. It has also leaned to taking politicians in as top figures which I think is wrong. The military should be in charge as they have the training and understand war conditions better than politicians who come and go and often have no knowledge of history or wars of the past which is relevant to understand the present.
March 4, 2025
Good morning.
This nation has never been stronger than when it faced enemies alone. Various alliances such as NATO have created a false sense of security. It has allowed governments of all stripes to weaken our nation in pursuit of other things. With the bringing of the second Trump Presidency he is forcing nations to stand on their own two feet and not look to the USA to shield and subsidise their defence and security. Something that most governments of Europe and especially our own have been scandalously carless with.
March 4, 2025
The last time “this nation” faced enemies alone was the Spanish Armarda (actually, just England).
We had allies in the wars against Napoleon; WW1 was triggered by an event in a foreign land and fought by the Alliances which had been created and we had the Empire backing us. In WW2, we stood alone against Germany …. with the Empire.
March 4, 2025
NATO worked. It did what was originally intended:
https://www.nato.int/cps/ge/natohq/declassified_137930.htm
āKeep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.ā
And eventually it did more than that, it broke the Soviet Union and released its eastern European satellites.
However having done that original job it then became involved in the eastwards expansion of the EU, and here it should be recalled that David Cameron was not the first Tory leader to call for the EU to stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals because John Major did that in 1991:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2025/02/17/the-eus-expansion-comes-up-against-russia/#comment-1499531
Eleven years ago almost to the day I posted a long comment on this thread, and it needs little updating:
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/03/03/the-eu-does-not-prevent-war-in-europe-lets-make-sure-it-does-not-lead-to-an-eu-army/#comments
“The pattern so far has been that first NATO agrees to provide military defence to a new territory, and then when it has been secured against external attack the EU can move in to provide the civil administration.
It could be said that the US has been using both NATO and the EU to further its global interests. It could equally be said that the EU has been using the US to do what it very much wants to do for itself but cannot yet do, which is to make sure that there is sufficient military muscle, including nuclear muscle, available to ensure the defence of its new acquisitions against external attack.
The crucial point here is that if there is any significant potential military threat to a territory that the EU is eying up for absorption into its ānon-imperial empireā, as Barroso famously described it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557143/Barroso-hails-the-European-empire.html
then that territory has to be brought into NATO before it can be brought into the EU; but some in the EU have been jumping the gun with Ukraine as they tried to do with Georgia, by trying to get those territories into the EU and under its civil government without first securing it through the NATO military alliance.
This is from 2008:
http://euobserver.com/foreign/26638
āEU should save Ukraine from Russia, NGO saysā
while this is from just a month ago:
http://euobserver.com/foreign/122972
āEU commissioner calls for Ukraine accession promiseā
Just for the record, this is how that pattern has developed in the past: of the present 28 EU member states, these 22 became NATO members BEFORE they became EEC/EC/EU members:
1949 Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, UK
1952 Greece
1955 West Germany (reunited Germany 1990)
1982 Spain
1999 Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland
2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
2009 Croatia
These 4 were declared neutrals before they joined the EEC/EC/EU:
Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland
Malta had been in the āNon-Aligned Movementā since 1973 but left it in 2004; similarly Cyprus had joined that in 1961 but left in 2004, and is still argued over by two longstanding NATO members.”
March 4, 2025
+1 useful info
March 4, 2025
Very interesting Denis.
There is no such thing as neutral, they should become peacekeepers and pay the other’s their 2% if they want other nations to provide their cover.
March 4, 2025
Trump has seen that Russia has been able to take itself out of the international system quite successfully and return to a Sovereign Economic Model and is following suit.
It wasn’t an issue for Russia because of its ultralow debt- but I wonder if he manages to achieve greater self sufficiency and balance the books what he might do about the US’s colossal debt pile.
Might holders expect a notice on X something like : “SUCKERS!!!!!!”?
March 4, 2025
DOGE – they are finding billions $s.
March 4, 2025
Trillions!
March 6, 2025
Quadrillions, no quintillions.
āBlessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom in heavenā.
March 4, 2025
Now we can see the reason why Zelenskyy, a brave and honourable man, was ambushed in the Oval Office on Friday by a hand-picked group of hostile MAGA journalists and the appalling JD Vance.
Zelenskyy was set up so Trump and his chief sycophants could blame him for the cutting off of American support. Trump has done this before – he personally intervened in 2023/24 and held up a bipartisan agreement to provide Ukraine with $60bn of lethal aid for six months
This all goes back to when Trump demanded that Zelenskyy “investigate” Biden for alleged financial irregularities. Zelenskyy refused and Trump was impeached.
Why should Zelenskyy apologise for standing up to the bullying? Trump, Vance etc should apologise instead of doing Putin’s bidding
March 4, 2025
@ Sakara Gold – so why does not ” Zelenskyy āinvestigateā Biden for alleged financial irregularities”?
Zelenskyy has a war-ending opportunity (and he cannot continue to wage war without American support unless he finds a replacement donor) and he should apologize for spurning it. He needs to wise up to the fact Crimea at least is never going to be returned to Ukraine.
March 4, 2025
Russia is a signatory to the Budapest memorandum, as are the UK and USA. Russia has committed multiple breaches of the Budapest memorandum since 2014 (invading Crimea was one such).
Why should Zelenskyy agree to anything which sells out his country in breach of an international treaty?
March 4, 2025
Let’s hope someone teaches Trump all the articles of the Budapest Memorandum.
March 4, 2025
Why? Because he’s losing, would be one answer. Also, let’s be clear: the UK and the USA committed violations of the UN Charter with invasions and regime change operations after 1994, then attempted to provide themselves with cover with the ‘Right to Protect’ Declaration in 2005. The Kremlin got tired of standing by and watching NATO countries’ invasions and regime change wars. It decided that Russia would also invoke the Right to Protect, when nothing was done to halt Kiev’s murderous oppresion of Russian speakers in the Donbas. International law, treaties etc. meant nothing to Bush and Blair, and that set a precedent.
March 4, 2025
@ Peter Parsons “Why should Zelenskyy agree…” – to survive would be my answer, one Mr. Zelenskyy might agree with given he has now so agreed.
March 4, 2025
To be clear, Mr. Zelenskyy has said ready to sign āany time and in any convenient formatā a deal giving the United States access to Ukrainian minerals, that he “regretted” the White House clash, that he wanted to āmake things rightā and that Kyiv is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible.
March 4, 2025
An inversion of that event, if you watch the following expert analysis of the body language. Zelensky had been invited to the White House to sign the Minerals Deal which had been negotiated and to kick off the peace process. He effectively refused and tried to negotiate in front of the cameras (having been teed up in advance by the pro-war faction in the USA) and provoked the row.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTvIEIPhiY&t=483s
March 4, 2025
Zelensky proposed the Minerals deal. He has done so for several months. Itās his idea. Trump accepted. Then Zelensky tried to panic the US people by threatening them with a Russian invasion – did he hope to āreigime change Trump?
March 4, 2025
In Stephen Kotkin’s biography of Stalin (Vol II,Waiting for Hitler) there is a passage relating to Ribbentrop’s visit to Moscow to raise the idea of what would become the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
“Ribbentrop ingratiatingly pointed out that both the Soviet Union and Germany ‘were animated in the same degree for a New Order in the world against the congealed plutocratic democracies.”
“congealed plutocratic democracies”-what a marvellous description and still so relevant today;perhaps Putin and Trump will finish the job !
Ribbentrop was a convinced Eurasianist(he wanted an alliance of Germany,Italy,USSR,Japan) rather than a Nazi ideologue-and was most upset by the decision to invade the Soviet Union.
March 4, 2025
No-one who watched the whole meeting – not just the last few minutes shown in news clips on the news media – can be in any doubt: Zelensky misjudged the situation and over-played his hand. Even his supporters, like Mandelson & US Congressman Lindsay Graham, thought so. He tried to lecture Trump and the US public. He was there to sign a deal he’d already tried to wriggle out of a couple of times. That deal would have allowed his country to enjoy peace and the economic support of the USA. But no. He had to wreck it, by demanding what he knew he wouldn’t get. Sorry, Sakara G., NATO is not there to support someone like that, who would just be a continuing threat to our collective security.
March 4, 2025
When someone like President Trump is paying your bills as VP said, the least you could do is say thank you.
March 4, 2025
Short answer is no. for example we cannot rely on a neighbouring NATO member which actively aids invasion of our islands by military age criminals.
NATO members might provide some aid but we cannot and should not rely on them, as you say in your last paragraph we must ensure our own defence. This is the first duty of our government which it has singularly failed to do since Blair.
March 4, 2025
It would be a start if we could control our borders rather than spend billions defending Ukrainian borders. How will 2TK answer that when confronted in Parliament.
March 4, 2025
Who will confront him, Ian? Not Badenoch, that’s for sure. Time was when we had interesting and passionate debates in the HoC. Not any more.
March 4, 2025
āSinceā needs clarification.
Since Blair started, or since he was dumped?
Since Blair started seems more fitting.
March 4, 2025
since Blair started
March 4, 2025
Agree but sadly our political class get carried away with grandstanding and enjoy the ego trip of being on the world stage. Looking after the UK First is lost on them and it seems that what tax has been raised on VAT on private schools is now being offset by an Export Gtee facility.
March 4, 2025
+1
March 4, 2025
Sir Joh has got a lot wrong on the NATO Treaty. His description of the 2% is wrong. There is no entry fee paid to NATO. The 2% guideline is for spending on NATIONAL defence. He omits that members remain sovereign and NATO has no authority over them. So they may take part in NATO operations or not as they choose. They may withdraw from them at any time. Article 5, which he misquotes, is the most widely misunderstood article of any treaty. He omits key words, ‘considered an attack on all’. Neither does it require commitment of military forces. It equires action only as the state sees fit. Article 5 provides legal cover, a casus belli, via the UN Charter to those that do so decide. It is a standing coalition of the willing. It is a condition that a member can only join by unanimous agreement of the existing members and only if it is not at war. Ukraine is not eligible. Otherwise any country at war could waltz in and expect others to come to its military defence even if its war is its own fault. But its allies can do that anyway without NATO as an ad hoc coalition of the willing.
Article 5 in full:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”
NATO does other good things on interoperability and infrastructure and filling in gaps between national requirements
March 4, 2025
You did not red JRās post did you?
March 4, 2025
Read –
March 4, 2025
No, but then we cannot rely upon our own leaders nor the political class taken as a whole.
Accordingly, as is also shown by history, our best course is to keep out of future wars so far as being a participant is concerned. Alas Sir “boots on the ground” Starmer is a doubtful ally in that.
March 4, 2025
NATO has been looking around for reasons to justify its existence since the end of the cold war. It got involved in Afghanistan, Libya, and even bombed Europe (Serbia). It’s a dangerous organisation that can be used by belligerent or posturing actors to further their aggressive, expansionist visions. It should be disbanded. We should certainly leave it.
We obviously can’t rely on other countries for our defence: look how the EU treats us, and look how shallow our “special relationship” with the US is.
March 4, 2025
Itās good that NATO has so many members, but having so many different weapon systems adds restrictive complications in joint ventures. However, the UK being part of a European army would be as ineffective and backward as the EU itself. We are better defending ourselves, and promoting peace to help others where we can.
March 4, 2025
Based on statements by the Trump administration it is possible the USA will quit NATO because it wants to focus on the APAC region, makes friends and do deals with Russia and save the money it spends on NATO. Stopping all US aid to Ukraine looks probable to put pressure on Zelensky to come to heel. But Zelensky and Ukraine might decide to fight on to the bitter end. Starmer’s efforts to keep the USA onside in the Ukraine will probably fail. That leaves the UK with three important decisions. How much and how fast does it rearm? How far does it go to build a European defence alliance? How far does it go to support Ukraine in its current conflict? His coalition of the willing in this scenario assumes huge significance.
March 4, 2025
I very much doubt that an EU “Mutual Defence Treaty and Organisation” would be written so that member nations could decide not to participate. If we joined such an organisation, we would be obliged to participate.
Ukraine is not in NATO and Putin has said he will never accept it, with justification. Trump has said Ukraine cannot join NATO and America will not provide security guarantees.
There are many in Ukraine and Russia who hate each other with a passion …. not so very different to the hatred between Palestinians and Israelis. After Putin reclaimed Crimea, but before he invaded Eastern Ukraine, there was in effect a civil war taking place between Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. That was Putin’s excuse for the invasion.
If Trump provided American security guarantees he would run the risk of militant Ukrainians deciding to provoke a response from Russia in order to drag the USA into a direct war with Russia. The same applies to Two-Tier’s “coalition of the willing” … with only Toy Town Armies, no armaments and not very many who appear to be very “willing.”
He is posturing and very foolishly tee-ing us up for a direct conflict with Russia.
March 4, 2025
The USA provided a security guarantee under Biden.
March 4, 2025
It was a very limited security guarantee, basically a commitment to continue sending munitions to keep the war going.
“Importantly, the pact does not commit U.S. forces to enter Ukraine and defend it against Russiaās invasion. The agreement instead formalizes Washingtonās current support for Kyiv for at least another decade. But thereās a major catch: The deal is only between the current administrations of the U.S. and Ukraine and wonāt be ratified by Congress. Should former President Donald Trump reenter the Oval Office in January, he could rip up the agreement, reneging on Washingtonās commitment.”
March 4, 2025
Just as the EU was a Franco/German driven organisation NATO is a British/USA driven organisation. The other members are important but do not decide the direction of travel. The inability of multinational organisations to operate as a united entity is normal, it always ends up being run by one or two or the members as we can see in this latest example.
The problem is not NATO as such it is the freeloading members that have simply used the scale of the USA’s military to avoid penny pinching nations from stepping up to their obligations, even avoiding defence of their own lands. Germany is a great example of inadequate defence spending with broom handles being adopted for rifles on practice grounds because that was all they had! That state of incompetence was orchestrated by the then Defence Minister one Ursula VDL. She became the natural candidate to head up the EU after her incompetence in ministerial roles.
The take away from the overnight news re USA withdrawing support for Ukraine, is.
You are on your own boys.
March 5, 2025
Ursula von der Leyen is only the President of the Commission. She is not the President of the Council though she seems to think she is.
March 4, 2025
More to the point, can we rely on Westminster? I fully support the aid given to Ukraine, but the Russians are more enemy than ours. We have an enemy that’s invading our country continually, setting up a state within a state in our own country, with no intention of integrating, showing their support for a foreign country over the UK on a regular basis.
If the UK government is serious about defending this country, let them first show it at the English Channel.
March 4, 2025
Precisely. The enemy within …. and that’s not just the criminal migrants.
March 4, 2025
Yesterday I was reading yet another direct attack in the right-wing press against wind farm electricity. This time it was claimed that Ā£250m has been spent on windfarm output curtailment so far this year.
This figure is a gross exaggeration. Unfortunately, this is frequently the case with pro-fossil fuel propaganda. Looking at the facts is informative. The total cost of the electricity produced in this country in 2023 – from all sources – was nearly Ā£172bn. It fluctuates according to the market price of gas.
Ā£250m is 0.14% of the total electricity output of the UK. During the winter 2022/2023 the government gave the fossil fuel majors operating in the UK a direct subsidy of Ā£47bn (the Ā£66/week winter fuel payment) Who is ripping who off here?
March 4, 2025
You are using and comparing some very odd statistics there SG.
Total cost of electricity produced….then creating a percentage using the newspaper article which talked about the costs of curtailment.
PS
And using that old green trope about subsidies to the fossil industry who pay over a billion net in taxes to the UK government.
One item in that made up total is the fact that gas and electricity bills are not hit with 20% VAT.
And another is their R and D costs are allowable against Corporation tax…like every other business.
March 4, 2025
And SG, another statistical nonsense is plucking a figure out of thin air..Ā£75 billion…as being the cost to the environment of using fossil fuels and calling that a subsidy.
Completely hilarious.
March 4, 2025
SG :
If wind power is 9 times cheaper than gas, why will there still be yet another round of subsidies for the next build of wind estates at AR7? Are wind companies ripping off the consumers?
NESO calculate the cost to achieve clean power by 2030 at āover Ā£40bn annuallyā and this will not produce abundant, reliable electricity as they also say that ācustomer engagementā (aka rolling blackouts) will be required at peak times when the renewables fail. So Ā£240bn in total (probably a massive understimate as some of the technology required does not yet exist) will be spent in case we have another war/event causing a cost of Ā£47bn to protect consumers.
So who is really ripping off the consumers?
March 4, 2025
I AGREE.
March 4, 2025
A better question might be, Can we trust NATO?
For of late it has become more political with senior figures suggesting that NATO should pursue the Ukraine war more vigorously.
Looking at how European leaders, and NATO, have aligned against Trump as regards ending the war, it is clear to me that those opposing Trump are the original globalists, backed up by the US democrats, who wanted to profit from pointless wars.
The combined strength of those opposing Trump is more than you’d expect, except that so much of that is aligned with what the NWO wants to do.
If we are to see ‘peace in our time’ then Trump has to break the coalition ranged against not just him but a rational approach to wars and peace. There are too many lies on the left side of this confrontation, and unless we back Trump there will never be peace.
Senior NATO commanders should stop interfering in the discussion, while we put pressure on Starmer to stop being a warmonger. As mentioned NATO has a rather specific role – it should not be used to get involved with expansionist EU policies. In fact it should be dormant until called up by senior NATO partners to defend our homelands, certainly not to attack other countries..
March 4, 2025
Am sitting here waiting for the markets to open – what has been happening in America is something short of economic vandalism – if changes were needed they could have been made differently. For the same reason we have to consider our future with NATO – Yes, NATO is good when it is there – but what if it is not there? We have first to look to ourselves and then like minded. Unfortunately the US is not like minded and hasn’t been for a long time
March 4, 2025
āHistory tells us the UK has to look to our own defences, geared to safeguarding our islands and ensuring greater self reliance in industrial and food production.ā
Is this the reason Parliament, all the parliamentary parties bar one, the Civil Service, NGOs, quangos, regulators and the judiciary support the Net Zero strategy to de-industrialise, impoverish, sabotage our energy and transition farmland to wind and solar estates and wildlife (aka derelict) parks to cause the rationing of food?
March 4, 2025
I just heard on the Today show on radio 4 (about 8:15am) that the BBC spoke with obvious disapproval that the U.S. president has an “America first” policy. Sorry BBC, the U.S. president is SUPPOSED to put his counmtry first.
Our government is supposed to put the UK first but although the main thing to do is defend our islands, we have negelcted that. We don’t need NATO to tell us to do that because that is a prime duty of our government.
Perhaps the government listens to the weirdoes at the BBC
March 4, 2025
‘History tells us the UK has to look to our own defences, geared to safeguarding our islands’
– The greatest war we ever participated in was WW2 where the USA (and Soviet Union) played a key role on our side.
– The second greatest war/s we ever participated in were against Napoleon where the Dutch, Prussians and Austrians played a key role on our side. And lots of other wars where other countries fought alongside us.
– And in 1066 we were conquered by the French / Viking Normans – and we never got rid of them!
March 4, 2025
We are them, in part.
March 4, 2025
Previous to that, we were the conquerors (assuming we’re Anglo Saxons).
March 4, 2025
English history really begins 1066 with the Normas who were Scandinavian Vikings essentially. Before then it’s all a bit nebulous! (Although genetically, most English are Anglo-Saxon although the old gentry and old aristocracy largely Norman).
March 4, 2025
But you’re 100% right we need to build up our armed forces / security. We need to invest a lot more (and in a way that the money flows back into our economy and not into the economy of another country). But we can’t develop the tech to build anti-hypersonic (and sophisticated drones) on our own. It’s a HUGE task and will cost loads with lots of scientists involved.
March 4, 2025
While Europe and Britain continue to indulge high principles, US foreign policy has swung to realpolitik with a vengeance. Trump and Putin look set to carve up the globe between them, like Gillrayās famous cartoon of the Plum Pudding.
Which slice Europe falls into is unclear but it appears not to Trumpās taste. Too much pudding perhaps, too few plums.
Nor are we on our little island in any better state. How we defend ourselves without money or munitions, steel or energy, ships, shipbuilding, farmers or food, is an interesting problem for government. If it doesnāt have answers we are not so much plum pudding as stuffed turkey.
March 4, 2025
Quite likely west-central Europe will be of no particular interest to either of them-no resources to speak of,no strategic importance(everyone is looking at the Indian Ocean,SE Asia and the Pacific littoral);a new third world in the making.The smarter states in the Balkans and SE Europe will likely seek admittance to the Eurasia-BRICS partnership when the EU collapses-as should Germany if it wishes to save itself.
March 4, 2025
The EU has been busily ensuring that European nations would be incapable of waging war against each other … with a deliberate strategy of creating inter-dependence. The British Establishment has deliberately created a situation whereby we are completely incapable of defending ourselves.
And what better way to drag us back into the EU than identifying “a common enemy” and creating a contrived “peace-keeping mission” outside of NATO.
March 5, 2025
I thought the EU had interconnected us all so that none of us could escape to independence. The pretence about stopping war is just – a pretence. The EU is in fact a cause of war.
March 4, 2025
Well, here is a contrived interview between two euromaniacs:
https://fedtrust.co.uk/video-is-danger-for-ukraine-a-danger-for-brexit-too/
and the one playing the role of expert seriously suggests that we have the expertise to help with the production of tactical nuclear weapons to be used against Russian forces in Ukraine.
March 4, 2025
An excellent article. But it will require a humiliating U-turn by the Net Zero nutters and a realistic approach to our economy and industry. Defence spending is going to have to come first for a long time, and that will be difficult for the PM, Chancellor and 90% of our MPs.
If I were PM, the line I would take with President Trump would be,” You are right, we have underspent on defence and allowed the USA to pick up the bill. But to build up our forces is going to take time, can we rely on the USA for the next five years, so we have the time to do it.”
March 4, 2025
All we have to do is stop slapping Trump across the face, and stop exciting war against Russia.
March 5, 2025
We should stop traducing Vance too. His attachment to us may not be as enduring as Trump and Bannon’s.
March 4, 2025
āCan we rely on NATO?ā
No, and imagine living under an authoritarian Communist regime which:
Rations meat and dairy and all foods to reduce CO2 emissions. Bans international shipping so we are reliant on home grown food whilst farmland has either been re-wilded (left derelict) or converted to wind and solar estates. Bans ices and gas boilers in favour of expensive and impractical evs and heat pumps both of which will need to be severely rationed because of the lack of electricity and local grid capacity. Replaces affordable, abundant and reliable electricity with an expensive, chaotically intermittent, weather dependent supply with everyone controlled through the use of smart meters. 15 minute cities as only āactive travelā and occasional public transport is permitted. All airports bar 3 closed and foreign holiday flights banned. New buildings made from rammed earth and stone as concrete is banned and glass and steel can only be obtained through re-cycling.
Itās too awful to contemplate.
March 4, 2025
@original Richard. Welcome to the world envisaged by the Conservation and Nature Bill, supported by all Lib Dem and many other MPs.
My local Libdem MP told me it was “an environmental imperative to protect” my local nature reserve, which is already designated a Local Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds, and MCZ (Marine Conservation Zone – in order to protect a colony of the 2mm long Defolin’s Lagoon Snail), Ramsar Site, and Geological Protection Review area.
It’s almost illegal to sneeze in the proximity, yet she’s telling me it’s an “imperative” to protect it more!
March 4, 2025
If one NATO member is asking its own taxpayers to cough up around 60% of the defense costs, and have available more than 50% of the men, machinery and infrastructure. While the bulk of the other 31 members, (saying as it is) just āfree-loadā something has to give.
Then add in those that are not NATO members that enjoy its protection, Austria etc., it is clear something has to give. As I see it thatās the point coming from the Trump camp, the USA is being taken for granted – which appears to be well founded. Are they being unfair when others expect the USA to step up and protect them at the cost to the US taxpayers, and US personnel ā while the others prance about, making big speeches but delivering on nothing? The US camp maybe a bit bombastic as far as the bureaucratic do-nothing camp are concerned ā but shock waves are needed to make them wake up and āsmell the coffeeā
To me the real fear is the traitor in our midst, the absent PM and Government, they are clearly contriving back door entry into the EU. He talks of EU protection being our protection – utter tosh They, the PM and his Government are refusing at every direction to allow the UK to become resilient and self-reliant. They are fighting the UK and its people to ensure it cant and wont. Talk of EU defense has nothing to do with the UK at any level. The UK needs and must in the first instance have it own fully manned and equipped defense and that has nothing to do with GDP. Only then can you step up and cooperate with others – that’s common sense, more so if your job is to protect the UK.
Then look at the Chagos give-away, what next?
The question isn’t just about NATO, its about the refusal to share commitments
March 4, 2025
When the horse has bolted
āThe British defense industry will be protected from more US takeovers, Sir Keir Starmer has signaled, amid fears one of the countryās key weapons manufacturers is about to fall into American hands.ā
It seems contradictory or is it, he wants to ban the US, yet it is OK for the actual French Government to own and run our key defense industries and supplies. Then get the Spanish Government to build our warships. These are Governments in control of our defences not shareholders or private corporations.
BAE Systems; the UK Government may have a so-called āgolden-shareā but it is more than 66% owned by foreign investors and the US making up 48% of the ownership. Then again, its primary markets are outside the UK with massive involvement in the US.
For TwoTierKier this is deliberately poking the āhornets nestā to create a pretense to slide back towards control by his favored pals that āheā thinks hold him in higher esteem than the UK Electorate
March 4, 2025
iim?
He’ll be stopping the sale of the British Defence Industry to the US in order to give it away to the Chinese as he’s desperately trying to do with the Chagos Islands.
March 4, 2025
Dear Mr. Redwood,
Self-reliance in these matters is so obviously right and simple common sense would also dictate action along these lines. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister seems hell-bent on burnishing his European credentials with his hare-brained scheme to put ‘boots on the ground and planes in the air’ in his ‘coalition of the willing’.
What about our European ‘friends and partners’ who make up the ‘coalition of the unwilling’? Are they just content to sit back and do nothing so they can resume supplies of cheap Russian gas when the crisis is over? What kind of partners are these? Do they expect other countries to sacrifice the lives of their young soldiers just so they can maintain their cosy existence?
What could possibly go wrong with this escapade? Will France be content for ‘perfidious Albion’ to take the lead? What will we do if Putin attacks and kills our soldiers or shoots down our planes? What is the exit strategy to all this? It simply cannot happen without US back-up which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Perhaps, if politicians had chosen the option of giving Ukraine the weapons they needed in the first place to push back Putin’s ‘special military operation’ instead of providing just enough to preserve the status quo, things might have turned out more favourably.
Again though, we see a Europe that is hopelessly divided.
March 4, 2025
APJ : “Are they (Unwilling European Partners) just content to sit back and do nothing so they can resume supplies of cheap Russian gas when the crisis is over?”
According to Rystad Energy, ships carrying 17.8m tonnes of Russian LNG gas docked in European ports in 2024, up by more than 2m tonnes from the year before.
March 4, 2025
I agree that it was a mistake on the part of EU/UK and particularly of the US in not having provided maximum help ab initio. There would have been far fewer casualties on both sides in prompt action had been taken as soon as the aggression commenced i.e by not later than 25 February 2022 and perhaps 8 years earlier.
March 4, 2025
I disagree. A short war would not have suited NATO’s plans at all. What was intended was a long war which would produce a lot of Russian casualties, run down its economy under sanctions, and hopefully lead to such discontent in Russia that Putin would be overthrown. it hasn’t happened, but you can’t fault the NATO strategists for making mistakes, or not trying. They got as far as bogging Russia down in a war of attrition, feeding in massive amounts of money and weapons so as to keep it going and stopping a conclusive outcome. It was a carefully calibrated plan which worked in the 1980s in Afghanistan: a long war became unpopular and caused the Soviet Union to collapse. It could have worked this time. There are war-hawks in London and elsewhere who think it still could work: “Just give it one more year, and Putin will give up.” I don’t myself support this strategy, but it seems to me to have been a coherent plan for achieving regime change in the Kremlin.
March 5, 2025
Just one more year,just like Vietnam!
They totally misjudged Russia’s industrial capacity(it had been obvious to anyone looking that Russia was quietly re-industrializing-I mentioned it here myself years ago), its financial strength and the measures put in place with China and India to sanction-proof Russian trade.
March 4, 2025
182 criminals arrived in the UK yesterday; from the safe country of France ā¦maybe we could deploy NATO
March 4, 2025
They simply don’t care about our borders or country.
March 4, 2025
Good to see the EU putting 800 billion Euro for rearmament and Germany proposal about bringing back conscription all of which is necessary to concentrate Trumps mind just as much as Putins. The agression coming from Russia is real but the confusion coming from the US is equally worrying. We cannot just sit around and wait for the US to straighten itself out which might be never.
March 4, 2025
I’m pleased that Kemi was one of the only UK politicians who spoke carefully about JD Vance today.
March 4, 2025
The US is not a reliable ally until the issue has been substantially resolved by the aggrieved parties. Not the case when contrariwise e.g Vietnam, Korea and Iraq.
March 5, 2025
Given our unhappy history with Germany, their rearmament does not fill me with confidence for the longer term. We must arm ourselves against Europe nearby as well as Russia further away.
March 5, 2025
NATO should be the entity through which collective European Defence is organised.
Unfortunately, as night follows day, the EU is trying to muscle in and establish itself as the principal defender of Europe on its long desired aim towards creating a United States of Europe.
All this going on while the EU is led by VdL, the very woman who was a total failure as Minister of Defence for Germany. She was an embarrassing disaster, as she still is leading the council of ministers. Another fine mess left behind by Merkel.
At the same time we have Macron working towards making France the country leading European Defence.
We can see that he is plotting to take over that role from the US using the EU as his personal fiefdom.
We need to keep the US on board but the only way to do that is for every European Country to make a fair contribution in manpower, equipment and money. Nothing less than 3% of GDP will be enough and countries like France, Germany and the UK need to be at least matching what Poland is doing, which is spending more than 4%.
Britain and France need expenditure on their nuclear deterrents to be on top of this, and expanded to fund credible battlefield nuclear weapons, a strong force multiplier in Europe which will do more than anything else to deter Putin.
March 5, 2025
Ursula von der Leyen is not President of the Council. She is only President of the Commission – the bureaucracy. She is a usurper.