The defence of Europe

I read, with great interest, Kim Darroch’s excellent article on the implications of a second Trump presidency (“Are we ready?”, April). I agreed with virtually everything he said as to what Europe and the west should do over the next few months to prepare for such an eventuality.

There was, however, one important omission in his essay. Darroch covered the consequences of Trump’s hostility to Nato and his implied threats to take the US out of the alliance; and gave good advice as to how to mitigate the inevitable and serious damage. But he did not comment specifically on a potential withdrawal of the US nuclear umbrella that has, through Nato, protected Europe from the threat of Russian nuclear weapons since 1948.

A withdrawal of US commitment—even if the US remained a nominal Nato member—would subject Europe to the possibility of nuclear blackmail from the Kremlin. Even without deploying its nuclear arsenal, Russia could threaten its use if Europe tried to defend the Baltic states, Poland or other nations from Russian aggression or invasion.

There is a solution. The United Kingdom and France are Europe’s nuclear weapon states. Although their combined arsenal is far smaller than Russia’s, they could, in a nuclear war, destroy Russia’s cities and devastate its economy and infrastructure.

When I was defence and then foreign secretary in the 1990s, I initiated a dialogue with my French colleagues on the need for the UK and France to coordinate their nuclear weapons and work together. Much has been done by Labour and Conservative governments since to enhance that dialogue.

The UK’s nuclear weapons are already committed to Nato. The UK and France should now work with Germany and all other Nato member states to make clear that, whatever a Trump administration might do, a united Europe would have the means and the will to protect itself from nuclear blackmail by Putin and his successors.

Much work remains to be done on this. It should be a top priority for the UK, France and the rest of Europe during 2024. Malcolm Rifkind, former Conservative defence and foreign secretary

Kim Darroch is perceptive on the dangers of a Trump presidency, but the unspoken issue is the damage done by the Democratic Party which has allowed MAGA to happen. The elite that dominates the Democrats has failed, over the last decade, to grasp the reasons for the rise of populism and address its own responsibility. The Democrat establishment assumed Trump would vanish, and

Hillary Clinton only reacted—with horror but no understanding—when it became clear he was making waves.

Nor has the establishment made any attempt this time around to address the unpopularity of Joe Biden, whose approval rating stands at below 40 per cent. While it may be too late to remove him as the candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris should certainly be removed, as her ratings have been even worse. Unless the party can find a way to think more strategically, its future among the diverse groups that could constitute a progressive majority is grim.

Trevor Fisher, Stafford

come by and resolution more difficult to achieve, to the detriment of all of us. DB Northrop, via email