The UK government has reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to NATO, pledging a ‘NATO first’ defence strategy in an article written by Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Defence Secretary John Healey in The Telegraph ahead of the NATO 75th anniversary summit in Washington DC.
According to a press release, this approach underscores the importance of NATO in ensuring the safety and prosperity of the UK and its allies.
In their joint article, Lammy and Healey highlighted the historical significance of NATO, established 75 years ago by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who united 12 nations from Western Europe and North America under the principle that “an attack on one is an attack on us all.”
They spoke of the alliance’s expansion to 32 nations and its continued relevance in the face of rising global threats and geopolitical competition.
“The first duty of any government is to keep the country safe and protect its citizens. We cannot have stability and prosperity without security. NATO is therefore the ultimate guarantor of all allies’ ability to live freely and build a secure, more prosperous future for their people,” Lammy and Healey wrote in the press release. They further stated: “Our government’s commitment to NATO is therefore unshakeable. We will have a ‘NATO first’ defence strategy. European security will be our foreign and defence priority. Our commitment to Britain’s nuclear deterrent is absolute.”
The ministers also reiterated the government’s promise to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as soon as possible and called on all NATO allies to adopt this new target. “We will increase spending to 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible, whilst arguing all NATO allies should adopt this as a new defence target. And we will launch a Strategic Defence Review, so we are fighting fit to defend against any adversary,” they wrote.
Highlighting the strategic threats posed by Russia, Lammy and Healey underscored the necessity of strengthening defences to deter President Vladimir Putin and supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
They noted their pre-election visits to Kyiv, where they assured Ukrainian leaders of the UK’s steadfast support. “We must strengthen our defences to deter Putin effectively. And we must reinvigorate our support for the brave people of Ukraine, as they defend their freedom against Vladimir Putin’s new form of fascism,” the article stated.
The ministers also discussed the importance of revitalising relations with European partners to address the current security challenges. They pointed to recent visits to Germany, Poland, and Sweden, which aimed to bolster support for Ukraine and explore further collaboration with European allies. “We have begun discussions about how we can do more with European partners. Bilaterally, we will leverage our tightly connected defence industries to strengthen our defences and support Ukraine,” they wrote.
Looking beyond Europe, the article mentioned the UK’s commitment to strengthening other alliances that enhance British security. This includes fully realising the potential of AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership with Australia and the United States. The ministers expressed their determination to ensure Britain remains a formidable and reliable ally, building the foundations for an era of renewal. “As we, alongside Keir Starmer, look to reconnect Britain on the world stage, we will be fully committed to strengthening other alliances that enhance British security in this increasingly insecure world. We will ensure AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership with Australia and the United States, fully delivers its potential,” they wrote.
Reflecting on the legacy of Ernest Bevin, Lammy and Healey concluded with a call for unity among those who believe in freedom and international law, quoting Bevin’s vision of peace and security for future generations. They pledged that the spirit of Bevin would live on in the new government, guiding its efforts to maintain a strong and reconnected Britain.
“Those who believe in freedom and international law must stand together, stand for what’s right – just as Bevin did 75 years ago,” they wrote. “Under our government, Britain will be confident in our purpose, clear-eyed about the challenges and determined to invest in our collective strength.”
To be honest I think a NATO-first strategy makes sense.
We don’t have the manpower or the resources to commit to the east. Even if we went to 3-4% of GDP I think we should ensure that, should the US have to divert attention east to China, we can still fight Russia.
I think we should keep all assets around the Atlantic – North, Med, and South (Falklands and Caribbean) and let the US, Australia, Japan and South Korea take care of the East.
“The East.” So, east of the Gulf area. 1 small Joint Logistics site, Naval Party in Singapore. 1 Gurkha Battalion in Brunei as Far East Theatre Reserve. 1 helicopter Flight, also Brunei. 1 Jungle Warfare School in Brunei. 1 Signals Troop in Brunei. 1 Naval party in Diego Garcia. A scattering of small elements making up British Gurkhas Nepal, including a Signals element. This force level has been there for decades. The Brunei elements I believe are paid for by the Sultan. Recently added. 2 RN OPVs. Skynet SGS, contractor operated, in Australia. This is WHY this emphasis of NATO… Read more »
To be fair, NATO first doesnt, or shouldn’t, mean NATO only.
Fair one with the small deployments you mentioned. I suppose I meant more along CSG25, and not deploying a carrier to the Pacific should SHTF in Taiwan, as the moment NATO goes East, Russia will stir up again.
Italy has deployed it’s carrier to the Indo-Pacific, this summer. Does anyone know when the French plan to deploy CdG carrier to the East? Maybe they can do rotations with RN CSG?
Making sure there is a European NATO carrier group available in home waters.
Are carrier groups really for home waters?
Surely they are to project power/maritime aviation some considerable distance from home waters ie to where we cannot deploy land-based air power to.
I would say this is more about setting the baseline for the defence review and resetting/stating the Europe risk…the posts Cold War 1998 defence white paper reset the UK defence paradigm away from a core function of supporting NATO.. Page 25 1998 white paper: “The UK will no longer maintain forces to meet a strategic attack on NATO. This statement is important since it, in a sense it reverses half a century of UK defence planning. From the onset of the Cold War and increasingly thereafter, the UK defence effort was dedicated to NATO. forces outside of Western Europe were… Read more »
Good background evidence to be fair.
Se my response to Jonathan. I’m far less optimistic
Starmer just yesterday , if we don’t exercise we’ll be ill prepared to fight their. We only found out the T45 couldn’t handle the Gulf by deploying it there.
‘Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Washington on Wednesday, he also signalled that helping NATO defend Europe from Russian aggression will be deemed a higher priority than sending military ships, jets and soldiers on exercises to Asia’
To be honest, Europe should be the core priority, followed by the eastern Indian Ocean followed by supporting pacific allies…that does not mean we should stop engaging in the pacific, we need to stay engaged with the pacific to show that we can move and support against china as a deterrent..but our key focus does need to be Russia…that’s the enemy which is an existential threat to us…china is an existential threat to friends and at a strategic level US hegemony. In the same way the US carrier force is pivoted and deployed so that as it’s key as a… Read more »
The thing is sending anything to Asia, even with the tilt to the Pacific has always been second fiddle to Europe. We’ve done the odd sub unit joint ex with Japan in recent years, and beyond that? RGR keeps a Battalion in Brunei, as it always has, 2 Rivers, and the occasional coy light infantry ex with the Aussie’s, maybe a patrol comp in the Jungle… I mean it’s not exactly a huge force laydown. Meanwhile in Europe we’re forward deploying battlegroups to Estonia and Coy Groups to Poland, doing joint air defence exercises in Romania, Steadfast Defender, Arctic training… Read more »
It’s simply reversing the 1998 white paper..which essentially moved NATO as secondary to expeditionary forces..now NATO is first and expeditionary second.
In 1998 our defence posture moved to:
“no longer is the force structure primarily defined by the contribution to NATO, but rather by the need to launch expeditionary operations.”
so essentially they are resetting to a pre 1998 stance.
I mean I have issues with that idea, for starters because supporting NATO remains expeditionary. In terms of how force structure and orbats will be arranged, or even equipment, I don’t see what changes this means. 3rd Armoured? That’s pretty much dedicated to NATO. 1st Division? Okay 16AA is globally focused but they do a lot of work in Europe and with NATO, 7 Brigade often is wheels up in Europe. 4th Light is non deployable so not at all expeditionary. ASOB? Rangers are integrating into NATO SOF structures, and consistently work with their NATO counterparts, and have long had… Read more »
No reason why we will not keep all that..we had expeditionary forces and capabilities before 98, when we formally switched to an expeditionary focus..personally I think people are getting theirselves all twisted up for a statement that is perfectly rational..” we need to focus on NATO”…no one has switched off east of suez or closed any sovereign bases… if the new defence review guts our expeditionary forces and closes all engagements east of Suez we can all rant away..until then I think people need to calm down a bit….it’s just showing Putin that everyone is focused on NATO.
The problem is mate is that Healey’s rhetoric for some time has indicated precisely that. He only shut up once missiles started flying in the Red Sea,
I’m going to be hopeful of a balanced: 1) “NATO first” policy…because European NATO is now the most likely first place we will see the west engaged in a major war and we ( France, UK, Germany, Poland, Italy ) need to be the major players in that war..not expect the U.S. to deploy massive forces….because they need to be focused on the pacific…and causing the US to look away from the pacific is what china wants. 2) backed up by constant significant and meaningful Indian ocean presence.because our enemies are trying to disrupt the Indian ocean and gulf shipping… Read more »
I’m not saying we won’t keep all that:
I’m saying “We will need to focus on NATO” means nothing to me because I don’t see what the shift is.
I suspect it’s more a statement of intend for consumption across the international community than anything else.
Jeez, withdrawal symptoms already. Looking East to Russia, what about all the very long supply chains going back further to South East, Middle East, Suez-Gulf?! Does the UK want to have less access and influence to the Indo-Pacific and having some presence even to defend international shipping lanes and free trade? Sounds a bit of “thinking globally but acting [more] locally” happening here. At least AUKUS, FPDA, 5 Eyes are still there. And wasn’t some in the US wanting a “SEATO” South East Asia Treaty Organisation like NATO? Good luck with that!
There are interesting consequences for the wider military picture beyond the tangible J3/5 that we all like to consider. It will likely change the priority for filling NATO assignments and potentially the caliber of personnel we look to deploy into European billets. The soft/smart power considerations are also significant, the funding and staffing of embassy defence sections are always under threat from Mil Cap/FCDO and they regularly compete with each other for resources. It was recently announced that we are the ‘second most influential country’ after the USA, this needs to be exploited even if it is not as sexy as sending… Read more »
👍Exactly!
The new strategy is missing the point, of that of some allies(DPRK) of NATO’s main enemy, are based in the Far East.
But it’s not about enemies it about doing the opposite of your political opponents it’s chapter 3 of politics for dummies 😀
Surely we’re spreading ourselves thin, then?
So explain why the US should bother with NATO, they get attacked we just smile say carry on, we get attacked and expect them to come running. Seems utterly pointless arrangement for the US.
So far the Nato Treaty has only been activated once. The USA was attacked, they called and everyone turned up. Three of their allies took heavier casulties in Afganistan than they did. The UK, Denmark and Australia. Then Trump threw away a won war.
Now Trump for the USA says they may not turn up if there is a major war in Europe over a budget squabble. FO Trump.
This exactly. The only time NATO has come running to anyone’s aid, it was NATO coming to help the US. And even though our nations where in the middle of a long peace, with no threat from Russia or anyone else, nobody asked “Well what is the US doing for us?” before following them into the Sandbox for Afghan.
I think you miss my point. We don’t have the troops, aircraft or naval assets to be in two places at once, and it’s extremely likely, almost guaranteed that if the US fought China over Taiwan that Russia would try its luck in the Baltic States or elsewhere, thinking NATO weak without the US. Surely, with our forces the size they currently are, they’d be more effective in one theatre than splitting them in two. My point is that we’d still be helping by picking up a lot of the slack left when US forces depart Europe for the Far… Read more »
But it’s an assumption if war broke out between China and US Russia would attack Europe. Russia can’t fight Europe even without the US on equal terms and would quickly resort to tactical nukes. We either respond in kind or quickly get around a table. Europe war with Russia would be over very quickly, and the stakes are so.high it will never start. Another factor is Russias biggest backer is China, the only reason Russian factories can produce arms is because China is supplying components and machinery, this would dry up quickly when China needs those resources itself. I myphed… Read more »
What makes sense to me in prioritisation is:
First – defence of the UK & BOTs;
Second – substantial contribution to NATO for security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area;
Third – best effort contribution to RoW security and stability (with allies of course), especially of the seas.
Best effort contribution. Graham with wooly non committal phrases like that have you considered running as an MP😀
Haha. Just painting a big broad picture as I see it, not writing Policy.
More talk, more promise, more waffle, no action. Business as usual. If Labour want to talk “tough” the very least they can do is match the Tories with a commitment to 2.5 per cent by 2030. As for the Defence Review, a review of what? The only way is up surely, and judging by the first week I can’t see that happening.
Hi Geoff, I’m kinda worried as well but think we need to give them a little time to see if anything good comes from them being in power. 🇬🇧
As you say Cj we will have to see what the defence review comes up with. I doubt I ever achieved anything but I shall have my tuppence worth and send in some thoughts as I have done before. Who knows ???🙄
God loves a trier 🙏
God doesn’t require perfection, only effort 🙂 Post WW2 world order was created and maintained by a few civilised clubs or communities which bought into the principle of mutual rights and obligations: NATO, the EEC, GATT. These clubs have become too big and unbalanced. The EEC has become the EU empire with progressive powerful nations having to discipline errant members. Too many European NATO ‘partners’ are defaulting on their obligations. If you want the benefits of a club you have to buy into the obligations. What we are seeing is the breaking up of the old order and the formation… Read more »
Are they asking for input? I did that too, back in the day.
Don’t know but the last🙄 lot did.
I look forward to seeing your thoughts Geoff.
i don’t think it’s fair to make that statement less than a week into the government..before even the state opening…let’s actually wait to make those statements until we have seen what they actually plan to do…I’m not making a comment until we get the defence review….
Maybe not butI’ve read five different articles in this first week. Healey, lammy and Starmer are all coming out with a versiion of Not in the first term, ie the next five years. Not good. We shall see.
No new Government can be extremely specific about defence posture and spending until they have understood what cash they have been left and also done a Defence Review of their own. Due to the timong of the NATO summit, we have now heard something of the direction of Labour thinking as regards philosophy which will underpin policy. I would not expect to have heard more than that barely a week on from the Election. You ask: why have a Defence Review – it is what all new Governments do. They cannot slavishly conform to a policy created by the Conservatives.… Read more »
2.5% GDP is so last week. HMG need to keep up. 😝
For me, our forces are overwhelmingly NATO orientated anyway.
So a bit of a gimmick, that improves….nothing.
Sorry, all you Labour fanboys.
Agree it’s a nothing statement..but they are less than a week in and making supportive statements during a nato summit is important ( after all some politicians have cut NATO with some iffy support statements and Russia and china do listen to statements) I will see what the defence review delivers or not….if they don’t deliver they will get a stiff letter.
Positive statements/articles by HMG Ministers may prove to be beneficial; positive actions by HMG would prove to be exponentially more useful.
Indeed, words do count, but in the end it’s actions that get you changes and outcomes that matter.
Hi M8 Army isn’t my thing but do you know what is happening with Belize and Suffield ? Everyone is focussed on the East but to me there are some deployments that to me just make little sense. Why have a Training facility in Canada when we have so few AFV left and it’s useless 6 months of the year ? Why have a Training facility for Tropical and Jungle fighting in Belize when we have a similar presence in Brunei (and the Sultan pays the bill) ? Recently we have had an enhanced Naval presence in the Gulf but… Read more »
Hi mate. Yes, I’d read of the legal tussle at BIOT, pretty outrageous. But also pretty outrageous how we treated the chagos people in the 1st place to ready the place for the US. It’s literally to raise the flag I think where the UK contribution is concerned. There is a RN party. The rest is all American. It’s usefulness to us is in the intell assets there which we, as UKUSA partners, are privy to, and we may, I’m unsure, have a very small presence there in that capacity. Belize AFAIK remains as BATSUB, and trains LI Battalions. Brueni… Read more »
And Ascension, vital and must not be relinquished.
Funny enough I’ve always wanted to visit Ascension and St Helena.
I understand only military or contractors can usually visit the former?
This is all very well but if the US leaves NATO in the next few years, will there still be a NATO. I mean would, for instance, Turkey send troops to defend Sweden or Greece? Would Hungary or Slovakia send troops to defend anyone? Germanys reluctance to do anything without the ok from the US is also a major concern. If Trump decides Europe is no longer an American issue, I can’t see NATO lasting!
Realignment. Next week at Blenheim Palace Starmer hosts a group called the European Political Community. He sees the UK as ‘re-engaging’ with the world ( post Brexit) and is positioning the UK as leader of European defence and security. He is using that positioning as a lever for better trade and security relationships with the EU knowing that the US would welcome the freedom to focus its military in the Pacific, on China. Douglas Alexander ( Minister of State for Business and Trade) and Ed Milliband ( Secretary of State for Energy Security) might get foreign office roles, This looks… Read more »
Yes, post Brexit,,the EU was sort of ambivalent on the need to defend Europe and therefore what the UK had was not valued as something on the table… Now…we are facing a European war against a nuclear armed aggressive fascist…the U.S. is looking like it could become a flacky Ally and at best is seriously pissed with a lack of European willingness to defend itself… Suddenly..the fact the UK owns over 50% of Europes carriers…its best air defence destroyers, over 50% of its SSN fleet as well as 50% of its nuclear deterrent and significant portions of its strategic air… Read more »
So effectively NATO is dead Europe will give Donald what he needs to justify quiting NATO and our government will be the main actor.
Note we own almost none of the intelligence assets NATO relies massively on the US. As it does for tactical nukes. So our goto response is…
Jeeezz and everyone was saying the adults are now in charge 😀
NATO is not dead, clearly the UK governments posture is now NATO focused. But clearly there is also the opportunity to have discussions with the EU as well….we do have to be ready for the fact the US may have a change in strategic direction…to not consider this would be profoundly naive. Also point out to our European allies that we do provide a hell of a lot that needs to be considered is important as well..why would you not try and lever every advantage…after all we already have defence agreements that are complementary to NATO with other European nations..it’s… Read more »
NATO is dead if we’re not prepared to fight for each other which is the direction it’s heading. It nieve to think US would not change strategy given what it will get in return from the NATO agreement.
Obviously if you backed Labour you’ll defend the Europe centric policy. I don’t have that shackle attached. 😀
Well we do need a European focus..but that does not stop engagement across the globe, or reduce the need..…you can and should balance your assets to your risks..at present we are looking at a shooting war in Europe as well as a shooting war in the western Indian Ocean…these will and should suck a lot of our time and energy, but we still need to show our ability to deploy into the pacific as china needs to see deterrent… I just don’t see anything wrong in making it clear that we have now moved away from the 1998 defence white… Read more »
Isn’t a little bit arrogant to not taken into account the view of and American voter by saying its all Trump. Afterall you have just voted for a party that will put the defence of Europe first. Now I’m an American voter on the doorstep why should I vote to stay in NATO, especially as Europe is now saying it will defend itself. Sell Starmers defence dream to me as an American politician.
When I say trump I mean every person that votes for him…the consequences of suffrage is a shared responsibility. And as I cannot list or know all 160millions voters in the US using the name trump is not a bit of arrogance it’s just practical. But in truth a lot of Americans I have talked to, really don’t see the point of spending their tax dollars on defending Europe ( I would say from my discussions it’s 50/50) and they specifically don’t like spending it defending Ukraine..infact a small number I have talked to doubt even the conflict is happing.… Read more »
You have shocked me by saying, in effect, that the UK does not have significant intelligence assets. If that was the case we would have nothing to contribute to ‘5 Eyes’.
Of course we have assets but Europe does have anywhere near the US capabilities in airborne or satellites for instance. It will take Europe a couple of decades to catchup with where the US is.
I have not seen a tally of assets (USA vs Europe) but you may well be right. It is not necessarily the quantity though – the quality counts too. Some ‘US intelligence failures’ have been jaw-dropping – its worth googling that phrase. I also think that we do HUMINT better than the Americans too.
The Americans were very impressed by the JSG by all accounts. We also have a longer history of involvement in Asia, the Middle East and Africa due to our historical links there, regards the capabilities of the SIS vs CIA in HUMINT.
I had not been familiar with the JSG until you mentioned it – I can see why the Americans were so impressed.
You may have come across them when you were on Op Banner? Called the FRU. Or laterly possibly JCU (NI)
Very controversial.
I’m still in certain whether they exist today or if the role has just been subsumed into the DHU.
I did not deploy on Op Banner. Clearly the JSG don’t make the Press very often, or I might have heard of them!
They don’t, but under their previous name, they did. Stevens enquiry.
I could list several UK Intelligence organisations that are duel staffed by both UK and US personnel.
Withdrawl of the US elements is catastrophic and would harm UK intelligence and defence immensely.
Yes. It looks a little more likely that Trump might win but I don’t think he would pull US personnel out of these dual-manned organisations or would abandon NATO.
It might be an open question whether Trump survives until the election…
Fair point. His Secret Service detail did a lousy prep job before the Trump Rally.
It does.
The problem is they are hand in glove with US assets due to the UKUSA agreement. I would say it is not possible to separate them without extensive damage to both.
This is primarily in the GCHQ/NSA area and the UK tri service units that support them.
Thanks mate. I know this is one of your favourite subjects and you are ‘on point’.
You could say, as these elements are UKUSA, that they’d in theory not be affected by a hypothetical US withdrawl. But I’m doubtful. They’re UK based.
Would the US leave NATO but leave it’s infrastructure and forces in place in Europe, no. Europe would rightly say, get out.
I think the idea of Trump leaving NATO is overcooked anyway. He’s rightly pissed at many European nations not taking things seriously.
Trump can’t leave NATO (rescind membership) without Congressional approval. What he could do on his own volition, is have the US formally withdraw from the integrated military command structure, as France did under de Gaulle and for some time after. That’s if the worlds only superpower really did want to be isolationist and have reduced power and influence in the world.
Thanks mate. Interesting if they did.
SACEUR is always an American. And deputy SACEUR always, I think, a Brit.
That would get the rivalries going.
“Positioning the UK as leader of European defence and security”. Nobody cared 4 years ago so that was never an option but Mad Vlad has changed that narrative! It’s not a thought through strategy. If there was no conflict on European soil it wouldn’t be an option for any British government in my opinion. The EU was happy to punish us as they saw fit despite punishing itself. So to set an example so no other country thought of leaving! But to do that the UK has to lead which means increasing GDP on defence. Actions speak louder than words!… Read more »
We are seeing a realignment of the post WW2 world order. Starmer is at NATO meeting this week. Next week Starmer hosts European leaders at Blenheim palace – a new group called the European Political Community. This group has been created for the defence and security of Europe. It is a subset of NATO and both the UK and the EU in turn are subsetS of this EPC. The UK is a member of NATO and the EPC. Aukus is a new grouping. Note that the UK is a member of all 3 groups. Our global influence is pivotal. There… Read more »
You forgot to mention JEF😬. It’s ironic really. Mad Vlad has suddenly put the UK in demand what with GCAP also! All these commitments come at a price. Speculate to accumulate as the saying goes!
…and to think some people still say that the UK is not a global power or global player!!
All this and winning the Euros?
…it’s too much 😀
😂
That all suggests role specialisation with the various European countries undertaking certain defence roles but not all. We have though always covered the entire spectrum of armed conflict. Might we drop certain roles/tasks?
Good question Graham. Bit above my pay grade really….back of fag packet defence review :-). I suppose it depends from which perspective you are looking. So, from a NATO/European ( biggest threat) perspective the UK might expect to take prime responsibility – leadership and contribution say for N. Atlantic, Barents Sea, N. Western flank but also be a contributor with some specialisms to other areas. This is sort of the way things are going ….strong asw frigate force + scalable amphibious capability + air defence…with bare minimum credible heavy armour contribution to eastern Europe. Repeat the same review for each… Read more »
We have had the odd African excursion – Sierra Leone a couple of times.
Might add the Eastern Atlantic for RN.
Might add something for the RAF to do!
The Yanks might persuade us to join them in another ‘coalition of the willing’ campaign somewhere unexpected.
But I think your fag packet defence review covers the ground!
My amateur review is about to replaced by a professional one. Announcement today of the people Starmer has appointed to do the govt defence review: Lord Robertson (a former secretary general of NATO), Richard Barrons, a retired UK 4 star general and Fiona Hill, a former White House Advisor to Trump. Robertson reported as viewing China as the major threat; sees it as the leader of the group China, Russia, Iran and N. Korea. Also reported today is a comment made by Trump’s presidential running mate; that he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine. Always good to know where you… Read more »
Thanks. I reminded folk last week that Blair’s SDR took 14 months. Did I hear somewhere that this SDR would report in the second half of 2025? I like the Review team – previously they have been anonymous, I think. Fiona Hill is a Russia specialist. Thank goodness there is no HMT rep centre stage, but they will be consulted. It will be interesting to see how the threat from the Asia-Pacific region (China, North Korea) is painted in the final report, and whether in a military sense if global Britain is ‘back on’. It will also be interesting to… Read more »
I think the review publish date is Q1 2025; as soon as it makes sense after the US election, with just enough time to check how the land lies. Trump’s running mate Vance yesterday called the UK the first Islamic country to have the nuclear bomb – he is more Trump than Trump. It should help that Robertson’s view on China lines up exactly with that of Austin Powell. But I don’t know if he keeps his job when the president changes. It is looking as if Ukraine territory could be sacrificed- just what Putin has been hoping for of… Read more »
I don’t think we have intentionally delayed publication until after the US General Election before – that would look as if we are controlled or influenced by USA. Still it makes sense for it to be not discordant from certain aspects of US foreign and defence policy. I just looked up the Vance quote – its unbelievable. Pakistan was the first Muslim nation to have the bomb. We are by no stretch of the imagination and according to any definition at all an Islamist country under Labour or previously under Conservatives. What is the man thinking? What is the point… Read more »
Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was, is the secretary of defense Austin Powell, a presidential appointment?
I still don’t know who Austin Powell is. Could you mean Lloyd Austin?
As US Sec of Defense then of course he is a Presidential appointee as are all members of Biden’s government.
It remains to be seen if Biden will be the next President of course.
I don’t think HMG should be overly interested or concerned at who the next US Sec of Defense is.
Yes, Lloyd Austin, my mistake.
Well one sure way to get US to leave is tell them we’re not going to fight with you outside if Europe. If we’re not going to exercise in Asia then we’ll not be prepared to fight there. US need Europe more than the reverse, Russia has played its hand and it was weak, the only way Russia can win in Europe is nukes at which point it’s game over for us all. China is the real threat to the US in the Pacific, if Europe’s not going to step up to that challenge in the Pacific NATO is far… Read more »
I don’t think anyone has said any such thing…clearly European nations do need a renewed focus on fighting a peer war in Europe as that is now a real possibility. No one has said we are pulling out of the pacific region and abandoning our pacific partners..and anyway if china went to war with the US NATO would end up being involved as china would inevitably attack the continental US in some way which would trigger NATO.
Has anybody suggested they wouldn’t help the US if they triggered article 5? It would be interesting to see who would help out with what though if they did!
There been several comments on here that Europe should focus on Europe and US on the Pacific. That level of thinking means NATO is pointless.
The U.S. already focuses on the pacific…most of their key foreign and military policy development since 2005 has massively focused on the pacific…most of their carrier fleet is based in the pacific, the majority of the SSN fleet…the U.S. has a far greater focus on the pacific…the US wants the European nations to be more focused and put more capacity into Europe so the U.S. can worry about the pacific…why would they want Europe to pivot way from Europe…that’s not sensible..the U.S. want European NATO to be able to handle its own affairs..so the U.S. is only supporting in Europe… Read more »
Security of the Euro-Atlantic region is pointless?
It means if you divi it up it nakes NATO pointless. Us and Europe just focus on their areas of concern. What’s being said is US has forces in Europe but if it needs to fight in Pacific Europe will back fill. So if Europe can back fill why have US forces in the first instance? The US can just restucture and focus on the Pacific. Likewise if there no threat in Europe an US is at war in the Pacific we won’t be deploying because our force structure doesn’t allow it and we’ve not trained there or test new… Read more »
Clearly NATO is stronger with the USA fully engaged. But if the US ever did leave NATO (unlikely in my view), I think NATO would survive as a Canada/Europe mutual security organisation. Because no single European nation would be able to defend themselves against a threat from Russian armed force – and defeat it comprehensively. I don’t follow your backfill argument. If the US has to fight in the Pacific, possibly against China, are you saying that they would withdraw their forces from Europe?…and that Europe would have to somehow make up for the loss of US forces in Europe?… Read more »
Yeah that’s nonsense. The world is too small and too interconnected now for that to be relevant. Probably relevant when NATO was formed but not today!
Every NATO country rallied to the US cause when Article 5 was called in 2001….and a lot of non-NATO countries too!
Let’s be honest,2001 was a completely different scenario to a possible future conflict with China! The Taliban wasn’t supplying the world with cheap goods or had nukes.
Of course every conflict scenario is different to another. But Article 5 does not differentiate between types of scenarios.
Dern’s answer is spot-on. If China attacked CONUS it would be a different story.
Hi Graham, I don’t dispute Dern is correct. I’ll give you a for instance. The US could have a Nimitz in the Pacific, one in the Indian Ocean and one in Mediterranean. Russia or China could sink 2 out of 3 and not get NATO involved. If you was an American would you be happy with that? Or they could sink a QE in the pacific and NATO wouldn’t get involved. Or any other ally for that matter if the wording is be that specific. Because the wording also states “or forces, vessels or aircraft in or over these territories”.… Read more »
Hi Nevis (or should I call you Ben!), Your 3 US aircraft carrier scenarios – I would hope that Americans well informed about NATO would know that it provides mutual security within the Euro-Atlantic area…and not outside it..and that any response is for the wolrds only superpower to decide upon itself. If China sinks a QE-class carrier in the Pacific, I am clear that Article 5 would not be triggered and that therefore there is no obligation on the other 31 NATO nations to join with us in a NATO operation to take on China. It is interesting to speculate… Read more »
Another real-world example of a ship of a NATO member being attacked in international waters, and way outside the NATO Euro-Atlantic area. USS Pueblo, a spy ship, which the US insisted was operating in international waters, beyond North Korea territorial waters. On 23 January 1968, the ship was attacked and captured by a North Korean vessel, in what became known as the “Pueblo incident” or the “Pueblo crisis”. The ship was attacked by North Korean forces comprising: two light frigates (submarine chasers), 4 MTBs and 2 MiG-21s. One of the 83 crew was killed, the Captain wounded by shrapnel –… Read more »
The wording of Article V is: 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 recognised 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… Read more »
If China launched a pre-emptive strike against Guam or against a Nimitz carrier with the loss of 5000 US personnel, would you not think that would be considered an attack on North America or at the very least the Americans would consider that an attack on North America?
No, it wouldn’t. The NATO charter is very specific, it states, as part of Article 6: “[…]on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;” An attack on Guam would fail to activate Article V due to: (A) Guam not being part of North America. North America is a Geographic term, not a political term. This is why “The Algerian Departments… Read more »
I believe that the US once had a poicy of being able to fight 2 very major wars simultaneously, then it dropped to 1.5 and now I think it is 2 wars near-simultaneously. Not an expert, maybe our US contributors could help.
Anyway, the US needs reliable fighting (European) allies to be able to prosecute 2 major wars simultaneously. A reason the US is likely to stay in NATO and maintain their European military connections.
Personally, I don’t think the US will quit NATO. I being a bit of protagonist though to highlight how dangerous some of the thinking that’s setting in could be. And the main problem with the thinking is it’s just to do the opposite to last party and to drive us back towards the EU. Let’s be honest if Ukraine hadn’t happened Labour would scraping around for another reason to not be global. Not that the Tories actually were.
Exactly.
Thanks. If Labour wants to abandon the Pacific tilt, then that would mostly impact on the Navy?
Also, many think that Starmer wants to at least rejoin the Single Market. Is that credible?
I voted remain so I’d be up for rejoining but I was never pro EU version of European defence. The navy may.not suffer as we’ll be creating 1000s of sqkm of offshore infrastructure that needs defending but the asset required for a more local defence are different. We have 2 carriers very capable SSNs that are assets that should play a global role and we should have a strategic aim to do that and fund it. Send an OPV to the Pacific isn’t a global strategy either so I’m non plused if they’re withdrawn. it’s a concern we’ll be leaving… Read more »
I agree that the Navy should not suffer as we are a global player and so have always had a bluewater navy.
But there is little money in the kitty for defence expansion in all 5 environments so ‘re-balancing’ may occur.
At the moment AUKUS is a trading entity, focussed on procuring SSNs, not a mutual defence pact. We are not committing bluewater naval assets to AUKUS.
policy!
NATO is irrelevant to the Pacific. Article V does not apply there.
The US will not surrender its membership of NATO but Trump if elected might choose to leave the integrated military command structure as de Gaulle did.
NATO would continue for Europe’s benefit even without the US (in whole or in part) – no European nation, especially the small ones, can achieve effective security on their own against a sizeable external threat.
I think they’re trying to ensure that everyone realizes the Corby years are over. Maybe it doesn’t mean much, yet, but they are making the right noises. It is however a bit ironic that it was Blairs 1998 defence review that prioritized expeditionary warfare and gave us aircraft carriers and not much else. Although with their huge majority, they don’t need to bother, I would like to see an all party approach to defence. It needs long term planning and funding, especially as design and build timescales are now so long for all major equipment programmes. PS never a labour… Read more »
I honestly think is more about setting the baseline for the defence review and resetting/stating the Europe risk…if you remember a long time again the Labour 1998 defence white paper reset the UK defence paradigm away from a core function of supporting NATO.. Page 25 1998 white paper: “The UK will no longer maintain forces to meet a strategic attack on NATO. This statement is important since it, in a sense it reverses half a century of UK defence planning. From the onset of the Cold War and increasingly thereafter, the UK defence effort was dedicated to NATO. forces outside… Read more »
So they should. Europe is on our back door. The Pacific is the other side of the world. I suspect the Tory focus there was a case of reimagining the ‘Empire’.
If China fights the US over Taiwan, the fact that it’s on the other side of the world will make no difference. Our economy will melt down as fast as any other country’s, and probably faster than most as we have a high-tech economy reliant on Taiwanese chips. There is no region in the world that isn’t interelated with all the rest. Even Antarctica will become increasingly politicised over the next twenty years. Ignoring the South Atlantic because it’s not covered by NATO also isn’t an option that will end well. The late Bronze Age collapse needs to be taught… Read more »
Quite right, but part of the picture is to reduce dependency on cheap Chinese products. This means re-shoring of manufacturing capability. Even in partnership with Australia, New Zealand and US we can only ever play a very minor role. Our main focus always has been closer to home and Russia is the major aggressor. We cannot even keep our own forces equipped and of a suitable size to deal with our doorstep. Europe has to be a far more immediate priority. Boost our capability here and that can also boost far way support. We struggle to send a single carrier… Read more »
Methinks your use of the word Empire more belies your poltical leanings ,than your strategics ones.
You clearly don’t understand irony or rhetoric! I refer to a certain Mr Johnson’s meandering bumbles. Nothing to do with leanings or beliefs on my part.
But in such a situation what assets do we have to put into the fight against China that are more than token or a symbolic show of unity?
Whereas we can dominate the GIUK gap along with Canada and Norway very well should Russia kick off again – which they almost certainly would if the US and China went to war.
No it wasn’t, it was about trade.
GCAP, AUKUS, CPTPP, and a wider footprint for our minimal forces there by the CGS displaying its capability to deploy at range from the UK.
The area is a huge growth market, and China is rattling sabres.
The UK, as a P5 UNSC member and one of the worlds biggest economies, should be out there.
That Labour look like they might withdraw to Europe, with all the geostrategic implications of that, horrifies me.
And as I pointed out earlier, our forces are NATO orientated already.
This announcement to me smacks of getting ready to justify cut cut cut as “we don’t need to go beyond European NATO any more” when in fact, we do.
Overseas territories, Op Shader, trouble in the Middle East, we can and must maintain our footprint, however minimal.
Of Course it’s all about Trade, it always has been right the way back to the Romans. Funnily enough it’s why I don’t think Trump will do a knee jerk and pull out of Europe and NATO. But I’d bet money on him reading the riot act to the 7 NATO countries that are doing sweet FA about the 2% on Defence but nothing more. One thing about Trump is if your on his naughty step you really know about it as he doesn’t pull his punches. If he did pull out I suspect the US Tech co’s and Military… Read more »
Yes and trade with what used to be the ‘Empire’. Though it is more a case of trying to find business partners to try and fill the gaps left by Brexit. In most cases it is also about us being sold to, or exporting tax-payer cash to other countries.
China is no longer the other side of the world! Here they are dipping a toe into Belarus right next door to NATO! Small beginnings and all that.
Don’t forget:
Akrotiri, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dhekelia, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.
Those are yours and you’ll need ships.
It goes a little further than that. The UK has been asked on several occasions over the years to render military assistance to friendly Commonwealth nations, just one example was the intervention at the request of the Sierra Leone government (Op PALLISER in May 2000).
Then there are Services Protected (or Assisted) Evacuations of British dependents from a country in conflict (eg Sudan last year)
….and Humanitarian operations eg relief after hurricanes in the Caribbean.