Keir Starmer has made much fuss about his recent trade deals. In an appeal to Brexiters and Reform he stressed that now, as an independent country we can make deals with whoever we want to. Looked at in purely economic terms the American and Indian ones could deliver more for the economy than the “European Reset” in its present form, but I do not think that is the main value of it. I think it was significant as signalling a turning point, that the UK sees itself as aligning itself with Europe not just for trade but for defence and cooperation in an uncertain world.
Most important was the deal that would give the UK access to the new EU procurement fund for defence equipment. Our own defence industry, which had virtually given up on Europe will welcome the chance to apply.
Ukraine and Russia
But is all this emphasis on defence spending necessary? Might not the Labour government prefer to spend money on other things? I think it is an argument which needs to be resolved. We are all aware of the situation in Ukraine, where despite Russia’s greater size and manpower, they only seem to be able to advance at a very slow rate. The resistance of the Ukrainians is magnificent. Despite besieging the border town of Pokrovsk for nine months, Russia has been unable to take it and is losing 1000 men dead or wounded each day. Instead, the Russians resort to missile and drone attacks on civilian centres. From what evidence we have the civilian population seems to be bearing up very well. I have just read the journalist Jen Stout’s account of bombing in Kharkiv, where some people seem permanently to live in the metro stations. “At least we get fed” one woman remarked. (See “Night Train to Odessa” by Jen Stout)
Russia’s reaction is to throw more and more resources into the “meat grinder”
I have managed to look at the evidence of how Russia is building up its military machine. The government does not have to worry about public opinion and is currently spending almost 7% of GDP on defence. NATO’s top commander, General Cavoli, has stated that Russia is replacing troops, tanks and munitions “at an unprecedented pace”, and can roll out 1500 tanks in a year compared to Amrerica’s135. Admittedly some of the Russian kit will be reconditioned Soviet era stuff, but the statistics are worrying. Accurate figures are hard to access, but the Economist magazine has obtained information from monitoring the number of mobile phone calls in arms factories, and satellite surveillance of material parked outside, which seems to indicate that defence production in the last three years has at least doubled and continues to increase.
What does this all mean? Initially Russia seems determined to win in Ukraine, whatever the cost. And if they do, it will mean an illegal land grab will have been legitimised. That may lead to more. Putin seems to want his legacy to be the restoration of the old Russian Empire from Czarist times. There is new disturbing evidence of Russian build ups in Finland and on the border with Estonia, countries once occupied by Russia. Russia is also expanding its presence on the northern Norwegian island of Svalbad. It all looks ominous.
Trump sees foreign policy as purely transactional and wants deals which would benefit America. His approach to Ukraine seems to be to secure some sort of deal with Russia which will probably cede territory to Russia and secure trading advantages for America. If Ukraine rejects this, as they certainly will, then he will “walk away” and presumably assistance to Ukraine will be reduced or cease entirely. If this happens the Russians will have effectively won and secured territory by military conquest. Ukraine’s ability to keep fighting will be weakened. Russia may then consider the rest of Ukraine when an opportunity occurs or the other territories I have mentioned earlier.
If this happens other countries in Europe, such as Poland would feel threatened. Parts of that country were also once part of Russia.
Europe
Many commentators have also expressed concern about the long-term future of NATO. America may be more concerned about China and either reduce or end its contribution. This is why the “European Reset” is important. European countries will have to play a greater role in their own defence. This is not a case of being a warmonger or wanting conflict. We have to face the situation as it is.
Europe cannot become an effective military force overnight. Despite the EU military procurement fund its military forces currently lack cohesion and have different types of equipment. It will take some time to coordinate the command and procurement systems.
Britain should try and gain trade deals wherever we can. But this is not about trade. It is about protecting our way of life, aligning ourselves with other democracies who share our values, and protecting countries such as Estonia, Ukraine, Finland and Poland which have built effective democracies after rule by authoritarian regimes. In any case allowing Russia to dominate large parts of Europe will be bad for our trade, as we learnt when we depended on their gas supplies.
Keir Starmer is doing the right thing with his “European Reset”. This is not rejoining the EU. It is working with other democracies to protect our sort of society.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
