The Sylvan European defence debate considered the following motion:
Europe and the UK need to provide for our own collective defence.
The debate took place on Monday 3rd March. Michael Carton proposed the motion and Giovanni Patricelli opposed it.
The proposition arguing we should provide for our own defence
The proposer opened by asking the house whether we could trust Russia not to invade Europe. Since 1991 the Russian Federation has undertaken 15 wars to grab land and support communists. Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia effectively since 2000. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and the US. In 2014 Putin ignored this agreement in taking Crimea and Donetsk, and illegally invaded wholesale in 2022. We cannot trust Putin, can we trust Trump? The Washington Post catalogued 30,000 false or misleading claims during his first term in office, a pathological liar. He uses Hitler’s ‘big lie’ approach – a lie so big, no one believes it’s a lie – and he’s a convicted felon. He called Zelenskyy a dictator and vastly under-quoted his approval rating at 4% versus the real 57% figure.
Trump claimed the US spent $350 billion on Ukraine, double the verified amount, and has repeatedly stated his desire to take Greenland and Canada. Elon Musk has said the US should leave Nato, and Friday’s dust-up in the White House between Trump, Vance and Zelenskyy has left Putin revelling. Does the US get nothing from Nato? They have $1 trillion in trade with Nato countries. We cannot trust Trump or any future US security, and Trump represents a bigger threat than even China. The UK and Europe must look after our own interests, with step one securing the safety of our citizens. We need a coalition of the willing now, and we should have done more after Crimea in 2014. We will need to make sacrifices. The $300 billion in Russian foreign assets should be used to defend Ukraine. Many died in World War II – we need to protect our freedom.
The opposition against the European defence motion
The opposer pointed out that a lot of emotions are wrapped up in this topic. We need to link trust and the consequences of the inability to trust. I cannot prove that Trump is reliable or Putin is okay. The motion states that we should go it alone, even with a third-party attacking Nato. Yet doing it by ourselves would have less value than doing it via Nato. Before Trump required Nato members to meet their spending pledges – now he is even more isolationist, even though the US has had its own benefits from the Nato alliance. The US had a relationship-based focus, but now it has become transactional – I despise that.
Project 2025 states that Europe should defend themselves. Should we invest in the military on losing our biggest ally? First of all, the end of Nato does not make anyone more effective individually, and secondly not more effective in projecting power. Rearming will not lead to peace, and sends out a message – defending against whom? Russia. You make peace with your enemies not your friends. However, none of this justifies Putin’s actions. We either annihilate or sit at a table. The thought that the US could attack Europe is ludicrous. Our current Nato defence arrangement provides a better value for money than a Europe-only arrangement. Having more allies drives more value, and we can’t ditch the US overnight. We need to address the threat to Nato head on.
We don’t yet face a Churchill moment where the means justify the ends. Do not activate the domino, let’s see if Nato can continue to work by trying to mend it. While we dislike the current US administration, and we can disagree on everything, now we should stand up and find our dignity. Not by serving the wrong purpose through rearmament but channelling it into diplomacy. I’m not ready to throw in the towel on the Americans.
Floor speeches from the audience of the European defence debate
Floor speakers ranged widely across all aspects of the topic. Nato in terms of military strength is 70% American, without them we would be tiny and incapable today. Trump joked about whether Europe could take on the Russians – not at all funny. Yet the US may come round when Europe spends more. Post World War II the world didn’t want Europe to militarise, and needed time to become wealthy (partly via the Marshall Plan). The US wanted to become the world’s policeman. Even the Soviets under Gorbachev pulled out of the nuclear race due to the costs. The British army today can only just fill Wembly Stadium. The motion does not mean withdrawing from Nato – yet we could be drawn into more wars. Trump isn’t stupid, he won two elections – perhaps he just cajoles to get more military help for the US.
Is Putin a long-term threat to us – Russia is far less powerful now, with a smaller population, weaker economy and tech. We should put boots on the ground in Ukraine, but army too small, and I would use the nuclear threat[!]. Weakening Nato will help world peace, as we have imposed our values on others who don’t share them, as in Gaza. The US interference in Ukraine upset the Russians and led Ukraine to war. We blocked Russia Today, against the principle of free speech. On the other hand, even Obama was clear on the lack of European defence, it wasn’t just Trump. We need a European defence capability that keeps the US engaged. We should find a way for European troops to deploy under a Nato badge.
Floor speeches continued
Abstain on this motion for peace! Defence is an illusion, weapons kill people, we are all humans. Putin loves the weakening of Nato, and we can’t negotiate with an unreasonable actor. Europe needs to get its act together – either roll over or put it in place. But who will pay for military spending, given the economy, and this will help the Reform Party. Putin doesn’t want European forces in Ukraine, but why would he go into western Europe? Trump angry that the Democrats don’t use US power to dominate, and he wants to use it everywhere. He may not back the Baltic states. If Putin wins, will we face more invasions globally? Nato was not about US goodwill but its strategic interest.
The opposer’s rebuttal
People share a range of values, and ours do overlap with those of Russia’s. Trump respects economic and diplomatic strength also. Russia haven’t won, but neither have they used nuclear weapons. The motion would mean going our own separate way from the US instead of collective defence with the US. The costs of leaving Nato do not outweigh its advantages. We do have emotions and historical momentum to consider. The threat to our unity is more dangerous than the threat to our safety. We need to mind what we have, and not push the ego button. We do not kneel to Trump, but economic and diplomatic strength. The Nato motto loosely means that the soul or mind should be undisturbed when taking decisions. We need to focus on defending our unity.
The proposer’s closing speech
Putin is the aggressor here, he wants to expand Russian territory. He would test the water in the Baltics, and the West would only talk. We have a view that democracy is important, as a choice – if you don’t like it, you can go wherever you want. Putin only recognises strength as a dictator, and Trump wants autocracy. Trump will leave soon, yet we could end up with J.D. Vance, and need to worry. The US has threatened to withdraw from Nato, we need to prepare. Wars serve the elites, and politicians want more power. Putin decries the fall of the USSR. Should we suck up to Trump?
Result: the European defence motion carried
In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that the UK and Europe should provide for our own collective defence.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.
For more information about how our meetings run, see meeting info.