Britain is fighting for taking the end of Atlantism

Unlock the Watch Watch Bety House newsletter for free

Your guide to what the US 2024 elections are for Washington and the world

The writer is the editor of FT that promotes

There are questions about the UK national security that remain even in the secret corners of Whitehol. The answers may be too painful. Donald Trump’s pagoda to European allies throws this request. As far as I can say, no one dared to ask, and here it goes. What would the government do if the US president decided to turn off its nuclear missiles?

The more you need to lose, the more temptation to avoid recognition that everything can go bad. Human nature is confronted here with cold logic. The more serious the potential shock, the more important to think about the incredible one.

This is the position that the Sir Keira government’s government appeared in the application of the Trump administration on the introduction of a bilateral Ukrainian peace treaty with Vladimir Putin. This would allow Russia to be profitable, and Ukraine is obliged to abandon the territory and refuse NATO security guarantees. Washington’s European allies will be sent on the sidelines during this possible restructuring of the continent’s security architecture.

Trump’s Message is the main rejection of NATO and the US security guarantee that has supported peace on the continent since 1945 – painfully for all Europeans, not least for the former Communist states sitting opposite Russia’s revengers. The unique vulnerability of the UK lies in more than half a century of indisputable Atlantism-dependence, which was thrown into the greatest relief by self-destructive departure from the EU.

Ever since the Sutsky trial sounded the last pipe of the empire, Britain has been resting on “special relationships” with Washington. The armed forces are set up to combat wars with the Americans, and the intelligence services of the two countries are intertwined. This remains nuclear energy just because US Trident missile supplies are for carrying nuclear warblers. When ministers talk about the defense strategy that is introduced into NATO, they mean the US.

Thus, no one should be surprised that the Starmer, who is heading to the White House next week for the fact that it once looked like a privileged audience, seeks to put a brave face to one -sided Trump. This is completely in the tradition of British commitment to Washington. Nothing new in the suggestion of Downing -Rate that Starmer can act as a “bridge” between Trump and other European leaders. The metaphor is unhappy. When Tony Blair dropped into his share with George Bush to dump Iraqi Saddam Hussein, he found that the bridges were passing.

But then Blair once told me that he saw it as a “duty” of the British Prime Ministers to continue with the White House passenger. For Starmer, the choice seems one between pretending that the alliance can somehow correct and admit that Britain needs a brand new foreign policy. While nothing else, officials say, once special relationships.

As for nuclear containment, it has never been really independent. That is why generations of British politicians insisted that it always call it. When John F Kennedy agreed in 1962 to put Paloris Government Harold McMilan, he attached the conditions. NATO missiles will be assigned. As for independence, the best thing McMilan could get was an agreement that Britain could return them to an emergency.

The same goes for the updated trident in which the government intends to spend tens of billions of pounds to keep my work for several decades. The Prime Minister may be conditional to “click”. But only Americans can keep the work system. Britain builds warheads, but rents rockets from US stocks. Thus, if the US president is definitely not a key to “exception” a trident, he can essentially disable it.

All this remained completely hypothetical, of course, as long as the restraint was part of the overall attachment to NATO as an anchor of Western security. And, to be clear, I have not heard any hint that Trump believes he gives up the deal. But the world has changed. Nothing can be considered an impossible president who has chosen Putin as an ally and wants to include Canada 51, take Greenland from Denmark and capture the Panama Canal.

The Trident was a symbol of “specialty” of relations. But he sits on the basis of the NATO pillar, which he cracks. Someone has to ask an awkward question. And when forming an answer, they must start with geography. European and British security is indivisible. They have always been.