Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 16 August 2025. © Richard Kemp

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met as equals on American soil this week, not because Mr Trump is in thrall to Putin but because his advances into Ukraine have been unstoppable despite over three years of Western effort. Ukrainian forces have fought hard and with tremendous courage, skill and sacrifice.

They prevented the intended Russian blitzkrieg at the beginning of the war and have pushed Russia back in places. They even conducted audacious assaults into Russian territory and inflicted unexpected damage on Moscow’s forces including in the Black Sea and as far away as eastern Siberia.

But Putin still believes he can absorb whatever blows Kyiv throws at him and win even more territory as his forces push hard and continue to make progress in the Donbas. This region, rich in mineral wealth, is Russia’s main military focus. Pushing against well-prepared Ukrainian defences here has proven costly in men and munitions and has made slow progress.

Putin would prefer not to continue fighting for it if he can get it by other means and he told Mr Trump at Anchorage that the war could end if Ukraine withdraws from the 30 per cent of Donetsk that his forces have not yet conquered.

Volodymyr Zelensky will be reluctant to agree to that and has said that voluntarily ceding any Ukrainian territory would require constitutional change. He will have to balance that with his judgment on whether Ukrainian forces will be able to hold on to it if the war continues, and what the price of that might be.

That assessment will have to include the extent to which the West, eyeing the potential for peace, will continue to enable his defensive efforts and how effective Ukraine can be on its own. On top of that, Mr Zelensky will be mindful that at this stage in this extremely costly war, polling suggests that the majority of the population want to see its end, with significant proportions reluctantly willing to give up land. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 11 August 2025. © Richard Kemp

Ahead of Trump’s summit with Putin, President Macron’s plaintive cry that Europeans will ‘necessarily be part of the solution because their security depends on it’ rings hollow. What would the Europeans bring to the table in Alaska? They have no plan of their own and even if they had one, they have no means to implement it. And what is more they do not have the political will to do so.

When US and Russian leaders met to discuss carving up Europe, at Potsdam in 1945, the British prime minister was in the room. That was because Britain was a major military and economic power that had more than shouldered its burden of the fighting in the Second World War.

Nothing like that can be said of Britain or any other European country today. All have downgraded themselves to the role of spectator. It’s too late to be pleading that ‘our security depends on it’ when they have wilfully neglected their own security for decades. Every Western European nation, including our own, has been running down its armed forces almost to the point of irrelevance, very often papering over their true weakness with carefully spun readiness reports.

Even at the end of the Cold War, when Britain had four fighting divisions on the books, we were only able to deploy one very small one to the Gulf in 1991, and that was done by cannibalising the other three. By the time we came to Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain was never able to field sufficient forces for the task it gave itself, and had to be bailed out by the US in both theatres. The situation today is even more dire – and we have the strongest armed forces in Europe.

Across the continent, those politicians who see the need for powerful armed forces always complain that defence is not a vote-winner, and so funds needed to boost combat capabilities are spent instead on welfare, education, health, climate change, immigration subsidies and overseas aid. But a political leader’s job is not to follow public opinion; it is to shape it. Very few have actually been trying to make the case for defence.

In fact most of Europe’s leaders have been working against national unity, identity or patriotism, in favour of an integrationist agenda that undermines the whole purpose of national defence. Don’t think Putin didn’t pick up on that when he decided to invade Ukraine. He looked first at the United States and saw only weakness: his invasion began just months after Biden’s debacle in Afghanistan. Eyeing Europe he saw a continent unwilling to stick up for itself, consumed by identity politics and societal division, and unable to do anything at all to staunch the migrant flow engulfing it.

Putin also saw a continent, even after his invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, that was willing to increase its energy dependency on Russia, and expose Ukraine to further aggression through the strategically illiterate Nord Stream gas pipelines.

And after three years of war, the gas keeps flowing into Europe and the euros keep flowing back into the Kremlin’s war chest. Even though the EU has reduced demand, last year it still imported €21.6bn worth. But don’t worry, there is a plan to phase out Russian gas consumption in three years’ time. The EU’s get tough on Putin policy faltered last month when Brussels struggled to agree on a proposed toughening of sanctions against Russia, though they were eventually adopted. That public show of disunity came after criticism of President Trump for delaying his own threatened sanctions.

We heard a lot about Starmer’s ‘Coalition of the Willing’ earlier in the year when Trump began to work on a peace deal. The contours of that plan were announced last month, effectively proposing an Anglo-French led multinational force of 50,000. I suspect in reality around half that number at best could be generated from those nations that might eventually step up. It appears that no boots on the ground are now on the cards, as originally suggested. That’s hardly surprising as Putin said any Nato forces deployed in Ukraine would become targets for attack.

Instead the idea is to provide experts to help regenerate Ukrainian forces after the war. Also envisaged is deployment of air forces ‘to deliver air policing’, whatever that might mean. I don’t anticipate dogfights between the Russian Air Force and the RAF.

Finally, there will be a maritime component providing specialist staff to accelerate mine clearance in the Black Sea. Last time this coalition was floated, Starmer admitted that there could be no such deployment without US security guarantees. Presumably that has not changed, making the whole project dependent on the good graces of President Trump.

So far, so feeble. Despite the European leaders’ fine words, ‘standing by Ukraine to the end’, and their disgruntlement at not being invited to Alaska, I suspect that the way events are expected to unfold actually suits many of them. They don’t want to go along with the vast expense involved in Trump’s plan to supply weapons funded by Europe. They don’t want to persist with sanctions on Russia that also bite them economically. They don’t want to have to live up to their new defence spending undertakings.

What they do want to do is get back to business as usual with Russia as soon as possible, no matter how precarious. Like the 2014 invasion of Crimea, they can live with that risk; the consequences will inevitably be someone else’s to deal with further down the road.

Whatever deal Trump is able to press on Zelensky may lead to at least a temporary ceasefire and that would be the answer to European leaders’ prayers. In fact, for many a ceasefire would be better than a full-blown peace agreement because it would keep Ukraine out of Nato and probably the EU as well, which would save a lot of problems especially with French farmers.

Meanwhile, when it all goes wrong, European hands are clean. After all, they were ready to back Ukraine to the hilt, weren’t they?

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 5 August 2025. © Richard Kemp

We have all seen pictures and videos of large-scale destruction in Gaza since the war began. The level of devastation has again hit the headlines after photos were taken from above by journalists on board the recent Jordanian humanitarian air-drops. I’ve seen it from the ground myself and the demolition is indeed truly horrifying; in places there is nothing other than piles of rubble where buildings once stood, as far as the eye can see. But this ruination should be no surprise to those who understand the way Hamas turned the whole of Gaza into a military redoubt disguised as a civilian population centre.

If you see pictures following any urban battle you will observe widespread destruction of buildings after opposing forces have fought a bloody fight to gain dominance. If there is greater devastation in Gaza than on some other battlegrounds, it can be understood by Hamas’s contemptible way of fighting. First, the tunnel network. Tunnels have featured in armed combat for hundreds of years. But nothing before has come close to Hamas’s utilisation of the 400 miles of tunnels it dug over 16 years as its primary military infrastructure, shielded beneath populated areas. The inter-connected network includes tunnels just beneath the surface and down to a depth of more than 200 feet. They are used for battle manoeuvre, weapons storage, command posts and living quarters.

The IDF estimates that Hamas excavated over 5,000 shafts to enter and leave the tunnels. Many of these were in ordinary houses, hospitals, schools, mosques and other buildings. To destroy tunnels or deny terrorists their use, it has often been necessary to blow up their exits and entrances. Many tunnel entrances have been booby-trapped with explosives, as have other sections of the tunnels, often concealed in the walls. Many IDF soldiers have been killed by them while entering or fighting through the tunnels.

As well as the tunnels, vast numbers of buildings of all types in Gaza have been used by Hamas as arms dumps, including in houses and apartments. In some areas every house, every other house or every third house contains weapons and explosives. I have seen boxes of grenades beneath children’s beds, rocket launchers in kitchen cupboards and rifles stashed underneath piles of clothing. So rather than blow up the buildings, why can the IDF not simply raid the houses and seize the weapons? Because it is estimated that some 40 per cent of buildings in Gaza were also booby-trapped to kill soldiers doing exactly that, and quite a few have died. The same applies to troops entering buildings to deal with terrorists within.

The IDF reports that of the total of 250,000 structures in Gaza, some 100,000 have been rigged with explosives. Many of these booby-traps are covered by covert cameras so they can be remotely detonated when the troops approach. An IDF soldier’s life is worth no less than anyone else’s, and destruction of a building is preferable to unnecessary death. Back in the 1980s, in Belfast during the Troubles, we discovered a house that was similarly booby-trapped by the IRA, with multiple concealed devices intended to kill soldiers and police. In that case, we also decided, rather than risk the lives of our bomb disposal experts, we would use explosives to do the job.

On top of all this, sometimes IDF precision strikes against a specific building have triggered secondary blasts as the shock-waves radiate outward and detonate Hamas explosive and missile stores, bringing down adjacent buildings as well. In other cases, an attack against a section of tunnel causes more extensive collapse, undermining the foundations of buildings above.

Many don’t want to accept that all of this devastation is by Hamas’s deliberate design. They transformed Gaza into an engine of war, harnessing the entire population, every building, every inch of land, along with much of the vast quantity of international aid poured in to help their people. Just as they blame Israel for the civilian death and hunger they themselves brought about, they also blame Israel for the physical destruction. They know this tactic works only too well, bringing international condemnation of Israel from governments, international bodies, human rights groups and the media. Those who are naive enough to walk into their trap simply validate Hamas’s horrific methods and ensure that, given the chance, they will be used repeatedly in the future.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2025. © Richard Kemp

Despite calls from the Arab League to disarm, Hamas says it refuses to do so until an independent Palestinian state is established. By that the terrorist group means it will never disarm, because it knows that no Palestinian state will ever be established. Certainly not the state they envisage, which is a far cry from the two-state solution that Starmer, Macron and Carney seem to have in mind. Hamas want a one-state solution, an Islamic State encompassing the entirety of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Hence their slogan ‘from the river to the sea’, mouthed incessantly on university campuses and the streets of our cities by uncomprehending hordes. Hamas’s founding charter demands the annihilation of Israel and the death of Jews everywhere. Despite a cosmetic ‘revision’ and English language statements made to fool Westerners, this has never been repudiated and remains their unwavering goal.

The leadership of Hamas are vicious, bloodthirsty terrorists, many of them multi millionaires enriched by decades stealing aid meant for the people of Gaza. But they are far from being fools. They understand that Israel will never surrender to them and they will never have the military power to drive the Israelis out. Their best shot was October 7 in 2023, which was supposed to be supported by an invasion by Hezbollah from the north and backed by rocket fire from Iran’s other ‘ring of fire’ terrorist proxies. They murdered, raped, tortured, kidnapped and burned but failed to achieve what they intended.

Instead their actions drove Gaza to ruin and decimated their own fighting strength. But they will fight on fanatically for as long as they are physically able to do so. Hamas is a miniature version of al-Qaeda. Like Hamas, Bin Laden sought an Islamic caliphate, but on a global scale. And like Hamas, he didn’t expect to achieve it in his life-time or even for generations. He saw his role as killing, destruction and economic damage. The purpose was to demoralise the West and ‘apostate’ Muslim regimes, creating strife and division around the world until eventually the caliphate would be established. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 19 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

The Foreign Office’s exposure and sanctioning of Russian individuals and organisations working against the UK demonstrates that we are a prime focus for Putin’s political warfare, which is the use of all means other than armed conflict to achieve the state’s objectives. Russia’s targets are worldwide, but it is obvious that Britain is a priority given our leading role in supporting Ukraine. Indeed, some have suggested that the UK is the number one target behind Ukraine, even above the US, as Putin still hopes to lure Trump away from giving his full backing to Kyiv.

Russian objectives include directly disrupting military aid to Ukraine as well as sowing division at home and inflicting greater costs on us through sabotage and cyber warfare. There have been repeated attacks in Britain and across Europe against infrastructure and transport hubs involved in shipping aid to Ukraine. A warehouse fire in London and an incendiary attack against a DHL hub in Birmingham are both likely to be the work of agents of the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service.

Cyber attacks have targeted media outlets, telecoms providers, political institutions, government bodies and energy infrastructure in the UK. The Ministry of Defence has repelled 90,000 cyber attacks from hostile states in the last two years. Many originated in Russia, usually via proxies. Espionage and disinformation are also critical elements of Russian political warfare. Earlier this year a group of six Bulgarians living in the UK was convicted of spying across Europe on behalf of Russia, and Moscow devotes immense resources into bot farms attempting to inject its anti-Ukraine narrative into social media sites.

Beyond sabotage, cyberwar and disinformation, Moscow’s political warfare operations include direct threats to life. Since Putin came to power there have been at least six assassinations or attempted assassinations in the UK that were likely the work of the GRU. Three of the GRU units the Foreign Office has sanctioned have been implicated in the failed murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018.

The cyber components of two of these units were involved in targeting Skripal and then sought to disrupt UK and international investigations into the events. The third unit, known as 26165, was directly responsible for the attempt on Skripal’s life. The same unit, in March 2022, conducted online reconnaissance on civilian shelters in Mariupol and Kharkiv, lining up artillery strikes which killed non-combatants sheltering there.

Despite its current emphasis on undermining Ukraine and its allies, Russia’s political warfare campaign goes much further, encompassing all areas of its national interests, including economic development, fostering allies and destabilising the West. A few years ago the head of Nato confirmed Russia had infiltrated environmental movements in Europe to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas. Since the start of the Gaza conflict in 2023, Russia has used armies of fake social media profiles to disproportionately amplify Pro-Palestinian voices in the UK to promote public discord and influence government decision-making.

‘The Kremlin should be in no doubt,’ according to David Lammy, ‘we see what they are trying to do in the shadows and we won’t tolerate it. That’s why we’re taking decisive action with sanctions against Russian spies.’ He is right to impose these sanctions, but even assuming many of our allies follow suit, they will have little impact. Nor will the detailed exposure of Moscow’s political warfare apparatus and some of its key players deter them. On the contrary, their activity will increase and become more sophisticated, especially with the development of artificial intelligence.

In this situation, we need to constantly improve our defences, both in cyber security and intelligence. There are opportunity costs to that though. A few months ago the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, admitted he had been forced to “pare back” on counterterrorism to deal with the growing threat posed by Russia and other hostile states. And don’t for one moment think that Putin is not exploiting the waves of small boat Channel crossings that are filling our country with people we know nothing about.

But defence is not enough: we must also fight fire with fire. The GRU, as well as the other Kremlin organs involved in attacking us have to be made to pay a price well beyond this sanctions regime. That means our own offensive political warfare campaign against Russia. Here, the Foreign Office sounds a hopeful note, claiming to be countering Russian attacks both publicly and “behind the scenes”. But do we have the capability, the legal freedom and the political will to inflict the damage that is required?

Image: UK Government

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 15 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

According to the anti-Trumpers, the president’s efforts to end the Ukraine war by mediation were a terrible betrayal and now his attempt to drag Vladimir Putin to make peace by stepping up military and economic pressure on Russia is not enough. These critics, especially the Europeans, would be more convincing if they had their own realistic proposals to end hostilities, but they do not.

Trump’s plan – to supply weapons to Ukraine but make the Europeans pay – is sheer genius, at least as a concept. It forces the EU countries and Britain to put their money where their mouth is, rather than allowing them to get away with weak pleas like “we would do more but we just don’t have the weapons”. It fits perfectly with his determination to make Europe shoulder more of the burden for its own problems. And it ought to play well to American voters, among whom continued US funding of Ukraine’s defence is not popular.

A key element of the proposal is to assist with the defence of Ukrainian cities from dramatically increased Russian missile and drone attacks. Trump said that Patriot interceptors would be sent – and these will likely either be purchased directly from the US or, if quicker, provided from Nato nations’ own stocks and replaced.

Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, however, said it would take months before the first Patriots could be sent to Ukraine, which evidently means Berlin is not willing to transfer its own missile systems.

He must of course worry about Germany’s own air defence, so it is a balance of risk between a hypothetical threat and an actual constant barrage of attack. In any case, there is not an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles, which cost about $4 million a shot, and are not the answer to Russian drone swarms which have been doing the most damage. But his comments were a telling indication of where Europe’s priorities still lie, despite the continent’s supposed insistence that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine win.

A key element of the proposal is to assist with the defence of Ukrainian cities from dramatically increased Russian missile and drone attacks. Trump said that Patriot interceptors would be sent – and these will likely either be purchased directly from the US or, if quicker, provided from Nato nations’ own stocks and replaced.

Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, however, said it would take months before the first Patriots could be sent to Ukraine, which evidently means Berlin is not willing to transfer its own missile systems.

He must of course worry about Germany’s own air defence, so it is a balance of risk between a hypothetical threat and an actual constant barrage of attack. In any case, there is not an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles, which cost about $4 million a shot, and are not the answer to Russian drone swarms which have been doing the most damage. But his comments were a telling indication of where Europe’s priorities still lie, despite the continent’s supposed insistence that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine win.

As far as we know, Trump has not yet committed to sending offensive weapons, but in a recent call with Volodymyr Zelensky, he reportedly asked if Ukraine could hit Moscow and St Petersburg. Perhaps Trump had in mind last month’s Israeli air campaign against Iran’s drone and missile capabilities. Zelensky’s response was effectively a Churchillian ‘give us the tools and we will finish the job’.

This is critical: imposing restraints on Kyiv against attacking targets inside sovereign Russian territory has been gravely damaging to Ukraine’s own fortunes. As important as protection of its cities is, the provision of large quantities of long-range offensive weapons and the freedom to use them would probably have the most decisive impact on Putin’s decision-making, both in the short and long term.

Making it harder for him to hit Ukrainian cities due to improved defences is not going to make him rethink. Smouldering military bases, government buildings and energy installations on a large scale might well do so. The Kremlin has pretty much made that concern clear, saying that Patriots do not cross a red line. But it angrily threatened Chancellor Merz that Germany supplying Taurus long-range missiles would bring it directly into the war.

Trump’s proposed new secondary tariff regime against countries that do business with Russia could also have a persuasive impact, with the Russian economy already under great stress. The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, however, said that Trump’s 50-day deadline for Putin to come to the table is ‘very long’. Perhaps Kallas, then, should immediately impose EU secondary tariffs, rather than shouting criticism from the sidelines? We all know that won’t happen.

Trump has correctly adjusted his policy towards Ukraine to account for Putin’s unwillingness to seek peace. It might be that the Russian leader will never accept a settlement, especially one clearly imposed by the US president. Could he even survive that eventuality, given the extent to which he has tied his own personal legitimacy with prosecuting a war to wipe Ukraine off the map?

But Trump’s latest gambit still has a chance of success, supposing that Putin believes that the Europeans are also serious about forcing Russia to the negotiating table. Sadly, they are failing to consistently indicate that they are. Do they really want to help Ukraine win its war, or do they just want America to do it for them?

Image: Wikimedia Commons