Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.
“You’re in no position to dictate… You don’t have the cards.”
With a startling lack of diplomacy, almost a year ago in the Oval Office President Trump spelt out some brutal realities to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. But the US Commander-in-Chief could just as well have been talking to Europe’s leaders.
The Ukrainian President was seeking American guarantees in connection with his country’s future. He wanted a bespoke version of Washington’s sword and shield which have been integral to the defence of NATO members and the rest of Europe since the late 1940s.
Trump’s America, however, has called time on Europe’s freeloading off its taxpayers and its mighty military.
The first year of the President’s second term was punctuated by uncomfortable reminders that the US has lost patience. They include Vice-President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. He was clear: “It is important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defence.”
Across Europe’s capitals, it took a while for the penny, euro and krona to drop that the Trump administration wasn’t joking.
Keeping this country safe, as the Prime Minister reminded us at Wednesday’s PMQs, is the first duty of government. If so, there has been a dereliction of that duty, reflected by the eagerness to splurge the post-Cold War peace dividend on voter-pleasing welfare. The defence of Europe, including this country, was outsourced to the United States.
Even with war on its doorstep following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago, dozy Europe was slow to awaken to the threat. It has needed the Trump administration to drive home the message about the importance of defence investment.
Finally, the continent is starting to step up.
This can be seen in Germany’s Zeitenwende which will see defence spending rise this year to €108bn (compared to €34.2bn in 2016), Sweden and Finland’s accession to NATO and the warning by France’s military chief General Fabien Mandon that the country must be prepared to “lose its children”.
Most significant is the commitment chiselled out of NATO-member leaders by President Trump last June, which pledged an increase in defence-related spending to an annual 5% GDP by 2035. Europe wants some cards.
Suffering defence-related FOMO (fear of missing out), the EU has conjured up SAFE, the Security Action for Europe. It is essentially a €150bn EU-guaranteed piggy bank “to speed up defence readiness by allowing urgent and major investments in support of the European defence industry.” SAFE also attempts to streamline defence procurement within the bloc by reducing duplication.
Aimed at member states, EU defence and security partners can also apply for low-interest SAFE funds. This includes Japan, South Korea, Canada and the UK.
Last week in China PM Starmer stated that he wanted to renew defence cooperation with Europe – not least by joining SAFE. But in November Britain abandoned talks because of the entry fee Brussels was demanding – reportedly €6.75 billion.
This extortion contrasts with Canada. The EU put out the “welcome to SAFE” bunting for Ottawa in exchange for €10 million.
UK-EU talks over SAFE are now set to resume. Aptly, for a defence-related pact involving the EU rather than NATO, questions are being raised about whether SAFE is a Trojan horse.
In theory, SAFE will give British defence firms greater access to the EU market. In practice, however, no more than 35% of components in any procurement project can come from outside the EU. That such strings are attached is inevitable, not least because each member state wants to safeguard its own defence industry and hamper competitors, including Britain’s stellar prime firms.
At the recent International Armoured Vehicle Conference, Army chief General Sir Roly Walker said that Britain’s military has been trying to imagine a large-scale combat operation in 2027. “What would we be doing differently now, and why aren’t we doing that?” There is similar focus in Germany where Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has warned the country must be prepared for conflict by 2029.
A fortnight ago at Davos, President Zelensky voiced his frustration at Europe’s inability to act, citing the limbo around Russian sanctions funds and the lack of will to halt Russian oil being transported around the continent’s shores.
The EU seeks to avoid duplication, but there is already a cross-European defence forum that could address efficiency issues, such as armed forces’ inter-operability: NATO.
SAFE offers Labour another bite of the EU re-set cherry. Promoted as a job-creation scheme, it is also an example Brussels’ tendencies towards protectionism and bureaucratic meddling.
The need for rearmament is urgent: the €6.75bn question is whether Britain should lock itself into SAFE.