‘A stain on the West’: The story of how the ‘greatest military force ever assembled’ abandoned Afghanistan
The Taliban’s triumphant march into Kabul seven days ago was the result of long-term planning and rank opportunism.
For weeks, Western leaders had insisted it just wouldn’t happen; in one heated briefing with journalists, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, even attacked the media for being unpatriotic and claimed that NATO forces had scored a strategic victory.
But for 72 hours over an August weekend, and with many senior officials away on their summer holidays, the world watched wide-eyed as the Taliban made their way into the central squares of city after city and finally through the gates of Kabul itself.
So how did this happen? How did 20 years of hard fighting, close mentoring, and vast financial investment unravel in only 11 days?
How did the “greatest military force ever assembled”, as George W Bush called it, not manage to defeat a group of mere “country boys”, as Gen Carter described them?
For this article, Sky News has spoken to a series of serving and retired military commanders, intelligence officials, and politicians. Between them they have decades of experience in Afghanistan. They tell a story of abandonment that has “left a stain on the West”, political short-sightedness that “demonstrates an ignorance of history and culture” and a future that is “uncertain, unpredictable, and will almost certainly come back to bite”.
***
On 29 February 2020, weeks before the world was crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic, America signed a peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.
From The White House briefing room in Washington DC, president Donald Trump described American forces as “the greatest fighters in the world”, but said “it’s time, after all these years, to bring our people home”.
Around the same time in Kabul, his defense secretary Mark Esper admitted “the road ahead won’t be easy”, while Afghanistan’s then-president Ashraf Ghani, standing next to the American but not a part of the talks, said his government was “ready to negotiate with the Taliban”.
From NATO to the UN, Berlin to London, the deal was welcomed with caution. Although many failed to share the American optimism, most knew the day had been long coming and accepted it.
“We went in together and we will leave together,” the alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at the time.
Britain’s defence secretary, initially a cautious supporter of the deal, has since described it as “rotten”, but too late. At the time Britain and other allies kept on message, afraid of angering Washington. On reflection, perhaps they should have spoken out sooner.
After the deaths of 2,400 US troops, 457 British troops and more than 60,000 Afghans, this was the beginning of the end – just not how anyone expected it.
British troops departed upon the end of operations in Helmand in October 2014, although a small number remained
It isn’t possible to point to a precise moment when everything started to unravel. Instead a series of events culminated over a relatively short period that, in the words of a military commander with knowledge of the situation, “sapped the confidence of the Afghan forces and passed the initiative to the enemy”.
The departure of civilian contractors, many of them ex-military, removed the network of logistical and engineering support so vital to any war effort.
But it was perhaps the loss of allied air support that crippled the fighting power of the Afghan forces and left them so exposed on the battlefield.
“For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed,” one former RAF pilot told us.
“We trained them to fight like that.
“You suddenly remove this safety blanket and they’re on their own; they knew that, and even worse, so did the Taliban.
“The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.”
Although the US continued limited airstrikes against Taliban positions, they weren’t enough to halt the advance, and besides, the Pentagon had made clear that support would come to an end by September.
“(US President Joe) Biden and others can say what they like about the failings of the Afghan Security Forces in recent weeks, but they merely expose their lack of understanding of warfare – it is not about numbers, or even training or equipment. It is about morale, will and confidence,” is the blunt assessment of one former head of British forces in Helmand Province.
“The US and NATO’s abandonment left them floundering, devoid of belief and fighting spirit. By contrast it buoyed the Taliban, giving them an unwarranted sense of legitimacy. The result, while swifter than most informed people expected, was pretty much inevitable.”
Through July, as the Taliban advance grew momentum, Afghan forces withdrew from some of the rural areas to concentrate on major routes, border crossings and key cities. It was a deliberate strategy to protect the bits that mattered, but the strategy of an army already on the run.
In late July, I met the Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib on a visit to London. He tried to put a brave spin on events: “Losing districts means we can focus on other areas. It’s not as bad as the Taliban would have you believe – they are winning the media war but not the military one.”
But Mr Mohib, who has since fled Afghanistan, knew by then that things weren’t looking good.
“The Americans probably didn’t realise how dependent the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] were on our NATO partners. The withdrawal has had a devastating impact. The Taliban are like zombies: kill or be killed.”
Despite this downbeat assessment, Mr Mohib was still devising his national security strategy for the coming six months; if he had any inkling of what was coming, he never let on.
For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed…
The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.
Through my many trips to Afghanistan perhaps one message was more consistent than any other, no more so than when I stood in the hills outside Kabul and watched new officer recruits tackling an assault course.
This “Sandhurst in the Sand” academy was supposed to be Britain’s legacy to Afghanistan, and I was repeatedly told how it was a “generational commitment” to train, mentor and nurture the commanding officers who would ensure stability and peace long after NATO left.
“We need to be here for years, possibly decades,” a British soldier told me at the time. “When an entire generation has passed through these gates and the head of the Afghan Armed Forces has been trained by us, here at this academy, then it will be ok to leave.”
That was only three years ago. The commitment will never be fulfilled.
On my last visit to Kabul, the city felt different to previous trips. Afghans oversaw security, manned checkpoints, and guarded major buildings. NATO forces sped across the capital in armoured vehicles but stayed largely behind the scenes. It was very clear there had been a deliberate shift in responsibilities.
The Taliban still launched attacks from rural strongholds, and although the attrition rate among Afghan soldiers was high – too high – they were just about holding the peace. As far as NATO commanders were concerned, it was a workable situation.
“The more we stepped back, the more they stood up, but international assistance in the background was vital,” one former commander of Task Force Helmand reflected.
“They have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.”
The US withdrawal cut this short.
President Biden inherited the Trump peace plan but didn’t change it. In fact he expediated it by a few months, eager to make good on a campaign promise to bring America’s longest war to an end.
In recent days Mr Biden has sought to justify his decision by arguing that remaining in the country for another “ten, fifteen years” would have made little difference. Maybe he’s right, we’ll never know, but few outside of government share that view.
The Afghan soldiers have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.
For one recently retired British general, with long operational experience in the Middle East, the politicians are to blame for what the country is going through now.
“As an Afghan, who do you trust more: the countryman who says he will kill you, or the foreigner who says he will protect you? When we lead, or fight alongside ‘native troops’, they will perform wonders, but their own commanders and political masters routinely betray them by corruption or refusal to accept responsibility.
“The US withdrawal and the inevitable collapse of the Afghan security forces means that every other aspect of our 20-year engagement (political, institutional, educational, social, health etc) has also collapsed.
“What was an ‘economy of force’ operation (very little blood, and relatively small amounts of treasure, given our overall investment in Afghanistan, rightly or wrongly) was needlessly and avoidably halted, with all the predictable consequences, so Joe Biden could meet a totally artificial deadline.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised
He is not alone in pointing the finger at Washington.
“Yes, exit was Trump’s policy,” tweeted the former British ambassador Tom Fletcher. “Yes, he would have communicated and executed it in an even clumsier, more crass way. But we expect empathy, strategy and wisdom from Biden. His messaging targeted Trump’s base, not the rest of world and not allies past or future.”
Others are angry at their own party.
One British Conservative MP texted to say: “I don’t really see the point of being in the Tory party anymore”, while another simply messaged three words: “Tragic. Unnecessary. Shameful.”
A few days before the collapse of Kabul, Britain’s Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, himself a former soldier, broke diplomatic cover to reveal that he had tried to persuade some fellow NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan once the US had left. He failed, and by then it was too late.
The appetite to operate without American backup just wasn’t there – this chaotic episode has exposed NATO’s weaknesses and shone a harsh light on years of defence cuts that have left the British Armed Forces either unable or unwilling to go it alone.
President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised. As a nation Afghans have paid a far, far higher toll than any other, but as the inevitable became clear, they deserted their posts and in some cases the country altogether.
On Saturday 14 August, the day before Kabul fell, 24 Afghan helicopters carrying almost 600 servicemen flew in secret to Uzbekistan.
Hundreds more crossed the Amu Darya river on Afghanistan’s northern border, but were detained by Uzbek border troops.
The rusting Soviet tanks in the Panjshir Valley are relics of a long history of resistance. Pic: AP
Others made for the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul in the Hindu Kush. The lush, mountainous region is still dotted with rusting tanks, destroyed during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, relics of a long history of resistance. If an uprising against the Taliban is going to come from anywhere, it will be the Panjshir, the one corner of Afghanistan the Taliban doesn’t control.
By Sunday lunchtime it was all but over. By now the Taliban was inside the capital, and en route to the Presidential Palace.
Knowing the game was up, soldiers changed out of their combat fatigues and melted into the crowds, fearful of Taliban retribution.
Western capitals watched aghast. The few official statements that did come out were largely out of touch and outpaced by the fast-moving events on the ground.
Remarkably some still called for a “political solution”, but there was nothing left to negotiate. The Taliban had won.
NATO might have abandoned Afghanistan first, but the country’s president and senior leadership followed swiftly afterwards.
Ashraf Ghani fled with his family and close aides. Reports said he was denied entry to Turkmenistan; he eventually surfaced in the United Arab Emirates, vowing to return and fight but Mr Ghani, not hugely popular when in power, is even less so after deserting his country.
Echoing the thoughts of so many who deployed in service of their country, one officer, still serving at the top of the chain, wrote to say: “The abandonment of our Afghan partners is a stain on the West. It leaves those who sweated, fought, suffered (and continue to suffer) and grieved feeling horrified and betrayed.”
One intelligence source defended accusations they didn’t see it coming, saying: “We did.
“Ok, maybe the speed of the Taliban advance took us a bit by surprise, but a swift Taliban overthrow was one of the scenarios we put to politicians. The problem is, they either didn’t want to hear it, or didn’t know what to do with it.”
MI6 and the CIA could do nothing but stand back and watch as the Taliban ripped through.
“I felt like crying,” another British intelligence officer confided. “We’ve spent decades trying to understand the country, building networks and relationships to ultimately keep Britain safe. Within days it was all undone. We go back to the drawing board. Many of the assets, who risked their lives to help us, are now in grave danger.”
In 20 years of conflict and reconstruction, however, Afghanistan has been undeniably transformed.
Education attendance is up, especially among girls; women have been able to work and represent their country in government, sport and music; roads have been tarmacked, improving transport links; and access to medical services, especially maternity care is vastly better. When widows and injured veterans reasonably ask: “Was it all worth it?”, these are the improvements they can be rightly proud of.
Some Afghans were so desperate to escape the Taliban that they clung to a plane as it tried to take off from Kabul
But for all that, the enduring images that publishers will put on the front covers, when the historians write the final accounts of yet another failed intervention in this graveyard of empires, will be two moments in the dying days of this mission. One is the heartbreaking sight of babies being passed over barbed wire to helpless soldiers by mothers so desperate, that they can see no other way.
The other is a photograph of Afghan men, clinging to the side of a giant US C17 transport aircraft as it gathers pace down the runway of Kabul airport leaving Afghanistan behind, in the hands of the Taliban.
For 20 years, as the fighting raged and death toll increased, the Taliban waited, believing NATO would eventually run out of patience. It turns out, they were right.
World
America will not put up with it for much longer!’: Donald Trump hits out at Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy once again
Donald Trump has hit out at the Ukrainian president once again, just four days after an explosive on-camera spat between the pair.
The US president posted on Truth Social saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy made “the worst statement that could have been made” when he said the end of the war with Russia is “very, very far away”.
“America will not put up with it for much longer!” Mr Trump posted.
Live updates: Trump hits out at Zelenskyy again
“It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be peace as long as he has America’s backing,” the president added.
Mr Zelenskyy then posted on X saying Ukraine is “working together with America and our European partners and very much hope on US support on the path to peace”.
“Peace is needed as soon as possible,” he posted.
Mr Trump also appeared to attack Mr Zelenskyy and Europe after yesterday’s Ukraine summit in London at which leaders, according to Mr Trump: “stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the US.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Ukraine summit: How the day unfolded
“What are they thinking?” Mr Trump asked.
Hours later, however, during a press conference at the White House, Mr Trump praised Europe, saying its leaders have “acted very well”.
“We’re going to make deals with everybody… including Europe and European nations – and they’ve acted very well… they’re good people,” he said.
Read more:
‘I found Zelenskyy defiant after disastrous confrontation with Trump’
UK to defend Ukraine peace deal with ‘coalition of willing’, Starmer says
He told reporters the deal with Ukraine wasn’t dead despite the ongoing disagreements between himself and Mr Zelenskyy.
Donald Trump speaking to reporters on Monday night. Pic: Reuters
“It’s a great deal for us,” he said.
“I just think he [President Zelenskyy] should be more appreciative.”
A deal to end the war was still “very, very far away”, Mr Zelenskyy said earlier, adding he expects to keep receiving US support despite the two leaders’ public spat.
“I think our relationship [with the US] will continue because it’s more than an occasional relationship,” the Ukrainian president added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky News meets Zelenskyy: The key moments
Despite the confrontation leading to Mr Zelenskyy being told to leave the White House, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage told Sky News’s chief political correspondent Jon Craig the argument may have been a “blessing”.
“Zelenskyy needed to wake up and smell the coffee,” said Mr Farage.
“And since that meeting, he’s done so, by the way, I’m told from people inside the White House that before they left the building, Zelenskyy wanted to go back in and sign the deal.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Pro-Ukrainian protesters gather in London
Mr Zelenskyy was in London over the weekend to meet with Sir Keir Starmer and King Charles and took part in a European summit on Ukraine convened by the UK.
Following the summit, Sir Keir announced a “coalition of the willing” to potentially provide boots on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
Read more: The ‘coalition of the willing’ – who’s in, who’s out?
US secretary of state Marco Rubio today thanked Foreign Secretary David Lammy for “the UK’s role in encouraging Europe to provide for its own defence and push for peace in Ukraine”, according to US state department spokesperson Tammy Bruce.
“The secretary confirmed the United States is ready to negotiate to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and will continue working with the UK towards peace in Ukraine,” she said.
Russia is finding it “significantly” harder to conduct combat operations against Ukraine because of a rise in Ukrainian long-range drone strikes on Russian weapons supplies, ammunition depots and fuel refineries, a senior commander has said.
Brigadier General Yuriy Shchygol signalled these attacks would grow, revealing that his country plans to more than quadruple the production rate of deep strike drones – with a range of hundreds of miles – to more than 2,000 aircraft a month.
Brigadier General Yuriy Shchygol
Ukraine has been intensifying the tempo of its long-range drone strikes against targets inside Russia and Russian-occupied territory since late December – demonstrating what defence sources say is a world-leading capability that the Kremlin is struggling to counter.
The mission is an example of how Kyiv remains focused on combatting Moscow’s invasion even as world attention fixates on the fallout from a row between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as efforts by Europe to prepare a plan for peace.
Live updates: Ukraine war latest
The comments by Brigadier Shchygol, who coordinates long-range drone strikes for Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence, offer a rare insight into the impact of the covert mission, which is also carried out by other branches of the Ukrainian military and security services.
“Russia is finding it increasingly difficult to conceal the extent of the damage,” the commander told Sky News in an interview at an undisclosed location in Kyiv.
“Headquarters have been hit, command structures weakened, and panic is spreading among their officers. Compared to a year ago, conducting full-scale combat operations has become significantly more challenging for [the Russians].”
Ukraine’s drone technology is considered to be world-leading
Sky News analysis of long-range drone strikes last month found that since December, there had been a ramping up of attacks against oil refineries in Russia that are used to fuel Russian tanks, jets and warships.
The analysis took in strikes officially confirmed by the Ukrainian armed forces. Brigadier Shchygol said “far more” drone attacks by Ukraine are not publicly confirmed.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Ukraine ramps up attacks on oil depots
In a sign of the importance placed on long-range drones, he said Kyiv’s ability to manufacture this weapon has already jumped 100-fold since late 2022 to more than 500 per month.
While the officer would not say how many of these drones are then deployed on operations, he noted: “Nothing is just sitting in storage unused.”
He said recent operations had targeted several storage sites for Russia’s Iranian-designed Shahed one-way attack drones – used by the Russian armed forces against Ukrainian military and civilian targets.
More than 3,000 Shahed unmanned aerial vehicles were destroyed, according to the officer, who said: “As a result, their deployment of these drones has significantly decreased.”
Top secret drone mission
Sky News was given rare access to view a drone mission last week at a top-secret area.
As night fell, soldiers dressed in black – all members of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, an elite branch of the armed forces – prepared a line of about 10 drones.
Ukrainian drones being launched from a secret location
Each aircraft looked like a giant, grey metal mosquito.
The model is called “Lutti”, which is Ukrainian for “Fury”.
One by one, the drones burst into life, a propeller on the back whirring, pushing the aircraft forward at ever greater speed until it took off into the darkness.
We were told their target was an ammunition depot inside Russia.
Ukraine’s drone technology is considered to be world-leading
“Vector” spoke with a balaclava pulled up to his eyes to protect his identity
“Vector”, the commander on the ground, said his drones have a success rate of 70 to 80%.
He said Ukraine’s deep strike operations are “very important”.
“We change the war with these drones,” Vector said, speaking with a balaclava pulled up to his eyes to protect his identity.
“We can show [Russia] that the war can come in their houses, in their towns, cities.”
Russia’s sheer size makes it vulnerable
Using drones to strike targets hundreds of miles inside Russia is a complex challenge.
As night falls, members of an elite branch of Ukraine’s armed forces prepare a line of drones
But the sheer size of their enemy’s country works in Ukraine’s favour. The Russian military has weapons sites, ammunition storage areas, oil refineries and military headquarters dotted across its territory and lacks the air defences to be able to protect them all.
“We are reaching those targets. The slowing pace of their offensives – and in some places, even Ukrainian counter-offensives reclaiming territory – proves that our strikes are effective and growing more so,” Brigadier Shchygol said.
Read more:
Which countries could send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine?
In the room with Volodymyr Zelenskyy
A huge planning and reconnaissance effort underpins Ukraine’s long-range drone strikes.
It identifies targets and coordinates attacks between the different teams.
Varying volumes of drones are required for each mission – with some of the most complex strikes needing 100 unmanned aircraft.
From farm aircraft to fighter drone
The brigadier was speaking in a large room inside a disused building in Kyiv where five examples of different Ukrainian long-range drones were on display.
Brigadier Shchygol spoke to Sky News from a room where long-range drones were on display
They tell the story of the evolution of vital battlefield technology that began life on a farm.
The earliest form of the long-range drone looks like an ordinary light aircraft, with rectangular wings and two propellers. It is a lot smaller than a manned plane but much larger than a regular drone – probably about the length of a car, with a similar wingspan.
This model, fitted with a camera and a large fuel tank to fly for long periods, had been used for surveillance for agricultural purposes.
It was adapted after Russia’s full-scale invasion to conduct reconnaissance and even bombing missions.
The idea was then modified further to develop similar-sized drones that look more like fighter jets, with pointed noses and triangular wings. These were designed to hold explosives in the main body of the plane.
Some of the drones are remotely piloted, others work via autopilot.
Russia’s war has forced Ukraine to use technology and innovation to fight back against its far more powerful foe.
It has accelerated the use of autonomous machines in an irreversible transformation of the warzone that everyone is watching and learning from.
Brigadier Shchygol said: “Right now, Ukraine’s battlefield experience is essentially a manual for the world.”
A “coalition of the willing” could provide boots on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
The phrase was a central theme of Sir Keir Starmer’s speech after European leaders gathered in London for crucial talks about Ukraine’s future.
Led by the UK and France, the initiative could see troops from a number of European and NATO countries deployed to Ukraine as peacekeepers in order to deter Vladimir Putin from rearming and attacking again in the future.
Follow latest: Russia not ready to negotiate, Zelenskyy says
Sir Keir said Europe “must do the heavy lifting” on defence and indicated several countries had expressed interest in being part of the coalition.
So who’s in, who’s out – and what’s behind these latest buzzwords?
The UK, France and Ukraine are leading on developing a peace deal. Pic: PA
What is a coalition of the willing?
The prime minister has said the UK, France and Ukraine will work together on a peace deal that could be presented to the US.
The countries committed to working together on this deal would form a “coalition of the willing”.
Countries in the coalition could end up sending soldiers to act as peacekeepers in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
Military analyst Michael Clarke said: “It has to be a coalition of the willing because you have at least two NATO members – Slovakia and Hungary – who are vetoing anything that Putin would not like… it’s the same with the EU.”
This approach would allow NATO members to act in a group but not under the NATO umbrella, avoiding vetoes from member states who don’t approve or don’t wish to be involved.
Sir Keir’s choice of the term “coalition of the willing” is also interesting. It’s perhaps intended to remind an American audience of a previous use of the same phrase: when the UK, Poland and other countries joined the US invasion of Iraq.
Russia has so far rejected the idea of any NATO or European peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
Map of military personnel by country, based on NATO estimates.
Who’s in?
Sir Keir is being “quite coy about who the willing are”, Prof Clarke said.
The initiative is being led by the UK and France, so it seems a safe bet that both countries would be involved in the coalition.
Both have powerful militaries and the two nations are also the only countries in Europe with nuclear weapons.
“The important thing is that Britain and France are going to lead it because they are the two most important military powers in Europe,” Prof Clarke told Sky News.
It is notable that France’s President Emmanuel Macron originally raised the possibility of French troops in Ukraine last year, when he refused to rule it out.
An F-16 aircraft releases flares during a NATO exercise over Poland. Pic: Reuters
The Baltic states – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – are also likely to be involved, along with Finland, Prof Clarke says. All four countries are in NATO and share borders with Russia.
Italy could be involved too, Prof Clarke said, though Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has clashed with Mr Macron over the idea last week.
Not in Europe but a NATO member, Canada seems another potential contributor to the coalition of the willing.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, when asked about a potential deployment of troops as part of a peacekeeping force, said yesterday: “Canada has looked at the ways it can best help and as I’ve said a few days ago, everything’s on the table.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Ukraine summit: How the day unfolded
Who’s out?
Prof Clarke said Poland, Spain and Germany are not expected to send troops as peacekeepers, for different reasons.
Poland has one of the strongest militaries in Europe and aims to spend 4.7% of its GDP on defence this year, well above the NATO target.
But it also has a long border with Ukraine and Belarus and is concerned about its own security.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk last month said: “We do not plan to send Polish soldiers to the territory of Ukraine.”
“We will… give logistical and political support to the countries that will possibly want to provide such guarantees in the future, such physical guarantees.”
Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has been critical of plans to send troops to Ukraine
Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Albares said last month that it was “too early at the moment to talk about deploying troops in Ukraine”, in remarks quoted by AFP.
He added: “There is no peace at the moment, and the effort has to be to achieve it as soon as possible.”
Spain’s government has faced a number of crises at home and spends around 1.28% of GDP on defence, well below the NATO 2% target.
As the biggest economy in Europe, Germany is a crucial part of any united response to the Ukraine war.
But a new government has not yet been formed after last month’s elections.
Incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Pic: Reuters
Outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz has previously ruled out sending German troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers.
While his government has provided substantial support to Ukraine since the full-scale invasion, he has been seen by some as hesitant – for example resisting calls to send the vaunted Taurus missiles to Kyiv.
Friedrich Merz, who is expected to replace him as chancellor once the new government is in place, has taken a harder line, including on pledging Taurus missiles, so it remains to be seen if his attitude on deploying troops will also deviate from his predecessor.
‘Coalition of the willing’ is a curious term to revive
The use of the term “coalition of the willing” to describe the nations that agree to support an international force to help protect any ceasefire deal in Ukraine is interesting and notable.
It could perhaps be an attempt by Sir Keir Starmer to appeal to an American audience as this was the phrase the United States used for its “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq more than two decades ago.
That intervention ended in disaster, triggering a bloody insurgency and locking the US and its allies into a costly war, despite the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein.
But reviving the words “coalition of the willing” will – if nothing else – remind Washington that London was its biggest and strongest backer when it turned to allies to back its 2003 invasion.
What about America?
The elephant in the room is the biggest contributor to NATO: the US.
For example, of the 5,015 fighter and fighter ground-attack aircraft in NATO, 2,951 of them are from the US, and a further 1,108 are US-made, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies thinktank.
And America’s military is not just the largest in the world, but its ability to support troops in the field in terms of logistics is very hard to replace.
The coalition of the willing initiative seems designed to show President Donald Trump that Europe is serious about shouldering the defence burden and taking on more responsibility for the defence of Ukraine.
It should be pointed out that while the US is the single biggest donor to Kyiv, Europe as a whole has pledged more, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy thinktank.
Read more:
Trump and Zelenskyy’s body language analysed
Inside a Ukrainian titanium mine
The hope seems to be that the coalition of the willing initiative would persuade the US as the world’s most powerful military to pledge support as a backstop, to underwrite the peace deal.
It’s unclear so far what Washington’s response will be, particularly after the fiery recent meeting between Mr Trump, vice president JD Vance and Mr Zelenskyy.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway