This question was a lurking preoccupation at the London Defence Conference this week, attended by the prime minister and the chief of defence staff along with academics and politicians from across the Western world.
There was general consensus that victory is essential not just for Ukraine but also for the continued security of its allies. In the margins of the conference George Robertson, former NATO secretary general and UK defence secretary, warned that the rules-based order will be over unless Russia’s illegal and violent invasion is repelled.
Autocrats, in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere will feel free to grab territory and rewrite national borders if Putin gets away with invading a sovereign neighbour.
The commander of the UK’s armed forces, CDS Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, insisted that NATO must do everything it can to support Ukraine’s forces, short of joining the fight. The UK is aiming to train over 20,000 Ukrainian troops this year. He argued that Western politicians should “not be afraid of escalation”.
Time is pressing. Many feared that backing for Ukraine would quickly fracture should Donald Trump, or another Trumpist Republican, be elected to the US presidency in November 2024. Although the retired US Army general Ben Hodges was confident that the bipartisan support by Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress would survive even that.
More from UK
Ukraine is rewriting the global balance of power.
Most significantly NATO has been strengthened by formerly neutral Finland and Sweden seeking to join. Against that, Russia and China have drawn closer together, while rising “middle” powers in India, Africa, and Latin America have deliberately refused to take sides, effectively indulging Putin’s ambitions.
Advertisement
Image: There’s broad agreement in the West that Russian can’t be allowed to win the war
Beyond the much desired and essential liberation of Ukraine as a free nation state, what challenges lie ahead? I asked an all-female panel of experts to compile a “future risks” register of the threats they see to our security.
Their suggestions ranged far and wide: conflicts with Russia and/or China over Taiwan and the Arctic; Iran; nuclear weapons; Chinese expansionism, and conversely an economic slowdown in China; fragmentation or disruption of global supply chains and communications networks; climate change; competition for hydrocarbon energy sources and the rare earth metals essential for both digital communications and renewable energy generation; societal breakdown due to rising economic pressures.
In spite of the immense damage being wrought by Russia, there was a surprising consensus that Putin’s regime has miscalculated and that Russia is now effectively a dependency of China. Russia’s rebuff in Ukraine has removed any active threat of China invading Taiwan, for all of President Xi’s declared intention to resolve the matter this generation.
Russia’s power lies in its role as an oil and gas supplier. It has now joined Saudi Arabia in OPEC+ and China has brokered a cautious reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, another hydrocarbon producer. As Europe weans itself off Russian energy, these suppliers are finding new customers and building their influence in other parts of the world.
Helen Thompson, professor of political science at Cambridge University, raised the possibility that a new OPEC-style cartel could emerge of countries with rare earth metals which are vital for new technology. “Even if we succeed in decarbonising,” she said, the amount of foreign metal dependency we will have will be huge.”
At the same time, she pointed out that the best efforts of Saudi Arabia and its allies failed to stop the US becoming the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas. The world is becoming more competitive and multi-polar, but the US is likely to remain dominant thanks to its natural resources, its lead in technology and the strength of its economy.
As China’s population ages, its economy is growing more slowly. Western leaders need to be vigilant as China seeks to bend existing global institutions such as the UN to its own advantage but, unlike Russia, according to Professor Thomson, China does wish to smash the rules-based world order established after the Second World War.
Image: Experts have warned about China’s ambitions but say any active threat to Taiwan has gone
Since the launch of ChatGPT, political leaders have been concerned about the “existential” threat posed by artificial intelligence.
Sam Altman, the chief executive of Open AI – which developed Chat GPT, was summoned to give evidence before the US Congress. This week he attended a meeting with Rishi Sunak, along with other tech bosses, to discuss how to moderate AI and prevent a catastrophe.
So far cooperation seems to be working, as tech innovators, including Elon Musk, voice their concerns to law makers.
Meanwhile, Nobel Peace winner Henry Kissinger has been focussing on the potential consequences of AI. Mr Kissinger, who was President Nixon’s secretary of state in the 1970s, is regarded by many as a foreign policy guru.
In a series of interviews to mark his 100th birthday this weekend, he has warned: “The speed with which artificial intelligence acts will make it problematical in crisis situations… I am now trying to do what I did with respect to nuclear weapons, to call attention to the importance of the impact of this evolution…It’s going to be different. Because in the previous arms races, you could develop plausible theories about how you might prevail. It’s a totally new problem intellectually…”
His comment helps to explain why AI was not discussed as a major risk by my panel. AI and quantum computers are likely to be extraordinarily powerful tools but they will ultimately be regulated and directed by human beings. They have no independent agency. It is up to us to get it right.
Image: There are concerns over AI but it will ultimately be regulated and directed by humans
With a self-deprecating “I would say this wouldn’t I?”, Polly Scully argued that data processing was potentially an asset which would could make the lives of citizens better through better analysis and forewarning of threats.
Her background was as a British civil servant working on crisis amelioration. She now works for Palantir, the Big Data analytics company co-founded by Peter Thiel, a major Silicon Valley investor.
The panellists – also including China expert Francesca Ghiretti and Mafrid Brout Hammer of the University of Oslo – agreed that a greater threat was posed by the disruption of communication and electricity supplies, possibly by malign cutting of under-sea cables than by the application of technology.
The discussions of risks at the London Defence Conference left me more optimistic.
On the immediate crisis in Ukraine, Ukraine has not yet won and much sacrifice will be needed for years to come. But CDS Radakin said that Western forces have “nothing to learn from the way Russia is fighting”, but they are adapting and modernising rapidly themselves because of their experiences in the conflict.
He does not believe there is an incentive for Putin to deploy nuclear weapons because they would serve no military purpose and because they would provoke an overwhelming response from NATO.
Over the horizon there are certainly major challenges and threats. Globally we are not moving fast enough on climate change. Countries with different ideologies from the “Western” democratic nations are gaining strength. Western politically institutions have taken a kicking recently thanks to poor and self-indulgent leadership.
Much work is required to win back hearts and minds around the world. But, if we pull ourselves together, “We” in the Western democracies still have the material, technological and human resources to overcome those risks which we can see ahead.
While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?
Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?
As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.
It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.
Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrantsfrom Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.
Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.
All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.
They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.
John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.
“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.
“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”
Image: ‘England is my dream country,’ John tells Adam Parsons
He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.
The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.
We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.
One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.
Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.
Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.
Image: Abdullah says ‘Gaza is being destroyed – we need help’
A man from Eritreatells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.
He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.
I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.
Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.
But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.
And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:48
Migrant Channel crossings hit new record
A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.
It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.
He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.
“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”
“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”
He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”
A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”
Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.
He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
US President Donald Trump is putting “heavy” pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza, two sources close to the ceasefire negotiations have told Sky News.
One US source said: “The US pressure on Israel has begun, and tonight it will be heavy.”
A second Middle Eastern diplomatic source agreed that the American pressure on Israel would be intense.
Image: Benjamin Netanyahu gave Donald Trump a letter saying he had nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Pic: AP
Netanyahu arrived in Washington DC in the early hours of Monday morning and held meetings on Monday with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser.
The Israeli prime minister plans to be in Washington until Thursday with meetings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
Trump has made clear his desire to bring the Gaza conflict to an end.
However, he has never articulated how a lasting peace, which would satisfy both the Israelis and Palestinians, could be achieved.
His varying comments about ownership of Gaza, moving Palestinians out of the territory and permanent resettlement, have presented a confusing policy.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:36
‘Israel has shifted towards economy of genocide’
Situation for Palestinians worse than ever
Over the coming days, we will see the extent to which Trump demands that Netanyahu accepts the current Gaza ceasefire deal, even if it falls short of Israel’s war aims – the elimination of Hamas.
The strategic objective to permanently remove Hamas seems always to have been impossible. Hamas as an entity was the extreme consequence of the Israeli occupation.
The Palestinians’ challenge has not gone away, and the situation for Palestinians now is worse than it has ever been in Gaza and also the West Bank. It is not clear how Trump plans to square that circle.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:13
‘Some Israeli commanders can decide to do war crimes’
Trump’s oft-repeated desire to “stop the killing” is sincere. Those close to him often emphasise this. He is also looking to cement his legacy as a peacemaker. He genuinely craves the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this context, the complexities of conflicts – in Ukraine or Gaza – are often of secondary importance to the president.
If Netanyahu can be persuaded to end the war, what would he need?
The hostages back – for sure. That would require agreement from Hamas. They would only agree to this if they have guarantees on Gaza’s future and their own future. More circles to square.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
17:44
Trump 100: We answer your questions
Was White House dinner a key moment?
The Monday night dinner could have been a key moment for the Middle East. Two powerful men in the Blue Room of the White House, deciding the direction of the region.
Will it be seen as the moment the region was remoulded? But to whose benefit?
Trump is a dealmaker with an eye on the prize. But Netanyahu is a political master; they don’t call him “the magician” for nothing.
Follow the World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Trump makes decisions instinctively. He can shift position quickly and often listens to the last person in the room. Right now – that person is Netanyahu.
Gaza is one part of a jigsaw of challenges, which could become opportunities.
Diplomatic normalisation between Israel and the Arab world is a prize for Trump and could genuinely secure him the Nobel Peace Prize.
But without the Gaza piece, the jigsaw is incomplete.
Only one issue remains unresolved in the push to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, according to Sky sources.
Intense negotiations are taking place in Qatar in parallel with key talks in Washington between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Two sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have told Sky News that disagreement between Israel and Hamas remains on the status and presence of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Gaza ceasefire deal in progress
The two sides have bridged significant differences on several other issues, including the process of delivering humanitarian aid and Hamas’s demand that the US guarantees to ensure Israel doesn’t unilaterally resume the war when the ceasefire expires in 60 days.
On the issue of humanitarian aid, Sky News understands that a third party that neither Hamas nor Israel has control over will be used in areas from which the IDF withdraws.
Image: Benjamin Netanyahu briefed reporters on Capitol Hill about the talks on Tuesday. Pic: AP
This means that the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – jointly run by an American organisation and Israel – will not be able to operate anywhere where the IDF is not deployed. It will limit GHF expansion plans.
It is believed the United Nations or other recognised humanitarian organisations will adopt a greater role.
On the issue of a US guarantee to prevent Israel restarting the war, Sky News understands that a message was passed to Hamas by Dr Bishara Bahbah, a Palestinian American who has emerged as a key back channel in the negotiations.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The message appears to have been enough to convince Hamas that President Trump will prevent Israel from restarting the conflict.
However, there is no sense from any of the developments over the course of the past day about what the future of Gaza looks like longer-term.
Final challenge is huge
The last remaining disagreement is, predictably, the trickiest to bridge.
Israel’s central war aim, beyond the return of the hostages, is the total elimination of Hamas as a military and political organisation. The withdrawal of the IDF, partial or total, could allow Hamas to regroup.
One way to overcome this would be to provide wider guarantees of clear deliverable pathways to a viable future for Palestinians.
But there is no sense from the negotiations of any longer-term commitments on this issue.
Two key blocks have been resolved over the past 24 hours but the final challenge is huge.
The conflict in Gaza erupted when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Some 20 hostages are believed to remain alive in Gaza.
Israel has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.