Remarkable – and relatively speaking a blessing – that the wake-up call for Britain to take defence seriously again did not come in the form of a military attack on UK soil, but instead was triggered by the verbal assault of Ukraine’s wartime leader by a sitting US president.
The lack of any physical destruction on British streets, though, should fool no one in government or wider society that the framework of security that has protected the country and its allies since the end of the Second World War is not at best cracked and at worst shattered.
Instead, check out one of the latest posts by Elon Musk, Donald Trump’s “disrupter-in-chief”.
He used his social media site X to say “I agree” with a call for the United States to leave NATO – a transatlantic alliance, and the bedrock of European security, that the new administration had until now continued to back at least in public.
It is yet another example of escalating hostility from the new Trump White House – which has sided with Russia against Ukraine, lashed out at its European partners over their values, and even suggested absorbing Canada as the 51st American state.
The alarming mood-change by a nation that is meant to be a friend surely demands an equally dramatic shift in approach by NATO’s 30 European allies and their Canadian partner.
Rather than stating the obvious – that American support can no longer be taken for granted – they should instead be actively adapting to a world in which it fundamentally no longer exists.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
When Starmer met Zelenskyy: What happened?
Make no mistake, this would be a daunting and humbling prospect – perhaps too awful even to contemplate, in particular for the UK, which has tied itself militarily so closely to the US for pretty much everything from intelligence sharing and technology to nuclear weapons.
Britain is not alone. All European militaries, as well as Canada, to a greater or lesser extent rely heavily on their more powerful American partners.
Breaking that dependency would require a rapid expansion in military capabilities and capacity across the continent, as well as a huge effort to build up the defence industrial base required to produce weapons at scale and exploit emerging technologies.
Sir Keir Starmer – who is hosting a Ukraine summit of allies on Sunday – has rightly adopted the UK’s natural position of leadership in Europe in the wake of Donald Trump’s extraordinary hostility towards Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He gave the embattled Ukrainian president a warm embrace on Saturday when the two met at Downing Street.
Britain is one of Europe’s two nuclear-armed states, a powerful voice within NATO, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:46
All the times Zelenskyy thanked the US
But talking tough on defence and the need to support Ukraine as the US steps back is no longer enough in a world where hard power is the only real currency once again.
A pledge by the prime minister to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament is of course a step in the right direction.
Yet unless it is accompanied by much greater speed and urgency coupled with a genuinely generational shift in the entire country’s approach to national security then it will go down in history as the headline-grabbing but otherwise empty gesture of a government that has forgotten what it means to be ready to fight wars.
She wrote that she supported the plan to lift the defence budget but said even 3% “may only be the start, and it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed just through tactical cuts to public spending”.
She added: “These are unprecedented times, when strategic decisions for the sake of our country’s security cannot be ducked.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:31
Ukrainians react to White House meeting
Ms Dodds is right.
It is no longer good enough to treat defence, deterrence and wider national resilience as a niche subject that is delivered by an increasingly small, professional military.
Rather, it should once again be at the heart of the thinking of all government departments – from the Treasury and business to health and education – led by the prime minister, his national security adviser and the cabinet secretary.
This is not something new. It was normal during the Cold War years when, after two world wars, the whole country was acutely aware of the need to maintain costly but credible armed forces and a population that was ready to play its part in a crisis.
At least one person has died after a car was driven into a group of pedestrians in the western German city of Mannheim – with a large police operation under way.
Several people have been “seriously injured” after the black vehicle rammed into crowds, according to German police, with a witness telling Reuters they saw people lying on the ground and two being resuscitated.
A suspect has been taken into custody, police spokesperson Stefan Wilhelm added, warning people who live nearby to stay inside their homes.
Mr Wilhelm said that the “incident” unfolded on Monday at around 12.15pm local time in a pedestrianised part of Mannheim’s Paradeplatz area.
Image: Forensics officers examine the damaged car near Mannheim’s Rhine Bridge. Pic: DPA/AP
Image: Armed police examine the scene where the car was abandoned. Pic:DPA/AP
Image: Mannheim is around 50 miles south of Frankfurt
“We can confirm that one perpetrator was arrested,” he said. “We can’t yet give information on whether there were further perpetrators.”
A spokesman for the German interior ministry said: “The focus is now on saving lives, treating the injured and the initial investigations by the authorities in Mannheim.”
Armed police and forensic investigators were seen examining a black vehicle with smashed windows near the city’s Rhine bridge.
Image: Emergency services in the Paradeplatz area of Mannheim. Pic: AP
Image: Pic: DPA/AP
Image: Paradeplatz, Mannheim. Pic: Reuters
Image: Emergency services patrol the scene after the incident. Pic: Reuters
Image: Mannheim is around 50 miles south of Frankfurt
Police described it as “a life-threatening deployment situation”, saying in an initial statement: “Currently, a police operation is taking place in the city center of Mannheim, in the area of Wasserturm/Plankenkopf.
“Police and rescuers are on the way. Further information is not yet available. In this context, there may be temporary traffic disruptions in the inner city.”
An alert was issued on the Katwarn smartphone app – used in major emergencies – telling people in Mannheim to avoid the city centre due to a big police deployment.
Image: Police vehicles at the scene. Pic: Reuters
Mannheim University Hospital said it is prepared for a possible “mass casualty incident”, implementing its disaster and emergency plan, and increasing intensive care capacity, according to German news agency DPA.
A total of eight trauma teams have been made available – for both adults and children, according to the agency.
“Postponable operations that had not yet begun were immediately removed from the operation plan in order to create additional operating capacity,” the hospital said in a statement.
Image: Emergency workers stand by in Mannheim city centre. Pic: DPA/AP
Crowds have been gathering in cities across Germany, including its Rhineland region, for parades to mark the carnival season.
Police were on high alert after social media accounts connected to Islamic extremist groups called for attacks on events planned in Cologne and Nuremberg.
Interior minister Nancy Faeser said she cancelled her appearance at the Cologne parade due to the events in Mannheim.
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.
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.
Image: 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.
Image: 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
3:52
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.”
Image: 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.
Image: 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.
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.
The world’s most prolific blood donor, whose plasma saved the lives of more than 2.4 million babies, has died in Australia.
James Harrison “generously” donated his plasma almost 1,200 times from 1954 until 2018 and was known as the “man with the golden arm”.
Described as a “humanitarian” who was “proud” to have saved so many lives, he died aged 88 at a nursing home, according to his family.
Born in New South Wales, Mr Harrison was “determined to give back” after receiving many lifesaving transfusions following lung surgery when he was 14.
His plasma was found to contain a rare antibody which was then used to develop medicine to prevent newborns dying from Rhesus disease.
The medicine, anti-D, is given to pregnant mothers whose rhesus negative blood is at risk of attacking the baby’s rhesus positive blood.
During more than 60 years of donating blood, Mr Harrison never missed an appointment, said Australian Red Cross Lifeblood – and he holds the Guinness World Record for the number of donations.
When he stopped donating in 2018 because he had passed the age limit, he said he would still give blood if he was allowed.
Australian Red Cross Lifeblood chief executive Stephen Cornelissen said Mr Harrison was “committed to a lifetime of giving”.
“It was James’ belief that his donations were no more important than any other donor’s and that everyone can be special in the same way that he was.”
He added: “James extended his arm to help others and babies he would never know a remarkable 1,173 times and expected nothing in return.”
Lifeblood said Mr Harrison’s blood “may continue to save lives” as researchers are working with his and other donors’ plasma to grow the rare antibody in laboratory conditions.