Over the past week, something alarming has been unfolding at British airbases. At least ten US C-17 cargo aircraft, two AC-130 gunships, and specialised intelligence aircraft have arrived at RAF Fairford and RAF Mildenhall, with reports suggesting elite special operations helicopters may also be present. This isn’t routine. The timing, immediately following Trump’s Venezuela operation, raises urgent questions about what Britain is facilitating from our soil.
Ed Davey has rightly described Nicolás Maduro as “a brutal and illegitimate dictator” – but the Liberal Democrat leader also warned that “unlawful attacks jeopardise safety for all.” That second part is crucial. Trump’s pattern of unauthorised military strikes, over 626 in his first year back in office, now includes capturing a foreign head of state and bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. Now, US forces are staging from British soil for what appears to be their next operation: boarding a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic.
The Marinera is part of a shadow fleet transporting sanctioned oil. Intelligence suggests Venezuelan officials discussed placing armed personnel and air defence systems on tankers. This isn’t routine; it’s a potential armed confrontation with a Russian-flagged vessel that could spark US-Russia military conflict, staged from UK bases.
Trump’s dangerous pattern
This buildup follows an established pattern. Similar deployments from Fort Campbell preceded Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted over 626 airstrikes in one year, with no Congressional notification, no alliance consultation, and no plan for consequences. The Venezuela operation exemplifies this: a regime change operation disguised as an arrest warrant, while his administration told Congress it wasn’t about regime change.
Starmer’s response has been inadequate. The UK offers only “cautious” reactions while providing infrastructure and diplomatic cover, with no real veto or meaningful consultation.
The risks are immediate. If this tanker boarding becomes violent, if Russian crew members are killed, we face a US-Russia confrontation. Russia will claim piracy and may retaliate with cyber attacks or naval harassment. Because operations launch from British bases, we become implicated in an escalation we neither chose nor control.
Trump’s contempt for the democratic process is clear. When he bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, only Republicans received advance notice. For Venezuela, no lawmakers were notified. Why would Britain expect better treatment than America’s own Congress?
Where Liberal Democrats stand
Davey’s response to Venezuela captures the dilemma perfectly. Yes, Maduro is a dictator. But unlawful military action undermines the very principles that protect all of us from arbitrary force. This isn’t just philosophical – it’s practical. Every time Trump launches unauthorised strikes, he gives Putin and Xi licence to do the same.
The Liberal Democrat leader has consistently shown courage, standing up to Trump – boycotting his state dinner over Gaza, calling him a “dangerous, destructive demagogue,” and warning we must not let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain. That same principled opposition must now extend to how we allow our own territory to be used.
The stakes
Trump has demonstrated a willingness to conduct unauthorised strikes against Iran and Venezuela, discussed operations against Colombia, and threatened Greenland and the Panama Canal. The question isn’t whether there will be further escalation – it’s where and when.
Every time British bases facilitate Trump’s unilateralism, we undermine the international order we claim to defend. We give Russia and China a licence to claim that if America conducts “snatch and grab” operations, so can they in Estonia or Taiwan.
As Davey said, we must offer “real hope based on hard work and concrete action.” That starts with ensuring Britain isn’t Trump’s accomplice in dangerous military adventures, serving neither British interests nor international stability.
The aircraft are already at our bases. The question is whether we’ll find the courage to say: not in our name, not from our soil, not without our consent. That’s the Britain Liberal Democrats believe in – one that leads through principle, not one that provides the airbases while Trump provides the chaos.
* Tanya Park is a Lib Dem County, Borough & Town councillor in Eastleigh, Hampshire and writes at A Just Society, a liberal policy project making the case for radical progressive policies grounded in liberal principles.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
16 Comments
@Tanya Park
The examples of Russia/Estonia and Chinese/Taiwan are not comparable. Taiwan just happened to be the one part of China that the People’s Liberation Army failed to capture in 1949. The government of Taiwan initially claimed to be the government of the whole of China even though it only controlled a small part. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations as the vast majority of the world recognises the government based on the mainland as the government of China. Taiwan is currently a self-governing entity that China has made clear remains part of China and which it intends to reestablish control over at some point. Should China decide to use force to achieve this end, this would be very different from China deciding to invade a neighbouring country like the Philippines or Japan – and we need to recognise this difference.
@Joan: Most of the World recognises the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the Government of mainland China, The only reason many countries don’t formally recognise the Taiwanese Government as the legitimate Government of Taiwan is a combination of geo-politics and bullying/economic threats by (mainland) China. By any reasonable moral standards the Taiwanese Government is democratic – and it has a far greater claim to legitimacy over Taiwan than even the CCP does over mainland China – remember the CCP is only in power by virtue of having forced its way there and thereafter refused any democratic elections. Since the CCP has never ever governed Taiwan, it has precisely zero historical claim on the island. And since it’s very clear the people of Taiwan have to desire to be ruled by the CCP, it also has precisely zero democratic claim.
Morally there there would be no difference at all between China invading Taiwan and China (or Russia) invading a neighbouring sovereign country.
Trump doesn’t do war. He does armed robbery, or “snatch and grab operations” as the OP puts it. We need to think through the implications.
Most commentators were mystified when Trump sidelined the Venezuelan opposition and left the Chavistas to run Venezuela. But from Trump’s viewpoint, that made perfect sense. Trump hasn’t sought regime change, as Bush did with appalling consequences in Iraq. Instead, Trump has cowed the Chavistas into forming a puppet regime. That suits Trump, who just wants pliant obedience. It also adequately suits the Chavistas, as they can carry on their corrupt, oppressive, and profitable goverment.
So much better than Machado, who might have had a mind of her own, might fail to keep control, and might (horror) have done the outdated European thing of holding fair elections!
Snatch-and-grab has many advantages for Trump. It has to be on the agenda for Greenland. The problem: The leaders of Greenland can’t be realistically painted as narcoterrorists. So snatching Jens-Frederik Nielsen (yes, reader, I Googled him!) would not be viable – Yet.
Trump first needs to provoke trouble. Perhaps a shouty Americal envoy can get himself beaten up in a bar-room brawl in Nuuk. Then Trump could demand a US court trial, and turn that into a kidnap operation. The Trump team wil be gaming their provocative moves right now. Boarding a Russian-flagged tanker might even be part of that plan. Starmer keep clear!
“Now, US forces are staging from British soil for what appears to be their next operation: boarding a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic.”
At the time of typing (19:30 on 7 Jan 2026) the tanker has been boarded and seized by the US military, apparently with some active British military support. It appears this and another seized tanker were in breach of international sanctions imposed on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.
I hope we can assume the international sanctions are important, proportionate and lawfully imposed and a useful tool in response to Russia’ unlawful invasion of Ukraine. If they are, then lawful enforcement of them seems a reasonable thing to do. Otherwise sanctions have only limited – and possibly only symbolic – effect.
Presumably the UK government judged that the risks of escalation are limited and perhaps extracted some other concession from the US. We have to hope they were right. Perhaps the increased difficulty for Russia in selling its oil in breech of sanctions will increase the pressure on Putin to come to the table over Ukraine.
Tristan Ward’s very cautious comments may perhaps have got the balance right in this particular case. Perhaps.
The 1982 UN convention on the law of the sea says “no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered in the jurisdictions of other states”. So yes, sanctions against Russia are morally justified, but legally, it’s edgy.
Did Trump deliberately involve the UK in order to get Starmer’s endorsement of his snatch-and-grab policy? Will Trump always win his military gambles, or will he (as in his business career) sooner or later come horribly unstuck?
Even if this particular gamble may have succeeded, the OP’s general point is still surely valid. The UK should keep well away from Trump’s dangerous military adventurism.
@ Simon,
Joan has it right about China. If there is one thing that the Nationalists and Communist governments agreed upon both during and after the Chinese civil war, it is that there is only one China. They just disagreed on who should run it and how it should be run.
The Taiwanese might claim to be more democratic now but up until at least 1970 there wasn’t much to choose between the two sides in the conflict. There hasn’t been a formal settlement, so the Chinese civil war hasn’t ended. It’s merely been paused. Unless and until there is such a settlement we don’t have any legal justification to be allying with either side.
I was waiting for someone to explain this. I may have missed this but is the agreement with the US that they can use our bases without asking permission? If so this needs to change. Or we expel them. But you can’t even cancel a mobile phone contract easily!
“Joan has it right about China. If there is one thing that the Nationalists and Communist governments agreed upon both during and after the Chinese civil war, it is that there is only one China. They just disagreed on who should run it and how it should be run.”
Say that again! It is still the case that Taiwan or The Republic of China to give it its proper name still officially claims territorial sovereignty over the territory governed by China before 1949, Including but not limited to, the entirety of Mongolia, the Russian province of Tuva, and various bits of other countries including Kyrgyzstan, (Khan Tengri), Afghanistan (Wakhan Corridor), Pakistan (Gilgit Baltistan) bits of Bhutan, bits of North Korea, etc.
Taiwan in fact lays claim to more territories ruled by other countries than any other country on earth. It currently has 17 argued border disputes.
Taiwan refuses to accept any agreement on border disputes made by the PRC, for example the existence of Mongolia or the resolving of the dispute with Afghanistan in the 1960’s and claims that they are illegitimate, as the PRC government is not the rightful government of China.
The UK official policy is a one China policy, as the the policy of the USA, and indeed most of the world.
It’s all quite mad really!
Time to mug up on the Melian dialogue – detail in the link. The UK and Europe need to find a way of not being forced onto playing the part of the Melians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#Background
“The Taiwanese might claim to be more democratic now but up until at least 1970 there wasn’t much to choose between the two sides in the conflict.”
I should have written 1987 rather than 1970. The Taiwan R.O.C. government, for obvious reasons, largely escaped international censure in the west in the post-war period. Chiang Kai Shek may well have been anti-Communist but he was no supporter of democracy.
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/revisited/20240105-taiwan-s-white-terror-dictatorship-still-divides-society
Tristan Ward: The Melian dialogue has lessons for both sides.
Yes, the Melians suffered terribly when the Athenians declared that might is right, and then proved it. But the over-confident Athenians got their comeuppance very soon afterwards, when they mounted a special military operation in Sicily, and got thrashed. Are you listening, Trump and Putin?
Ah, the Melian dialogue !!! Memories of sitting at an uncomfortable wooden desk in 5 Remove at 9.30 a.m. on a cold Monday morning in Bradford more years ago than I care to admit.
Whilst you’re looking it up, young Tristan, may I remind you that neither side had nuclear weapons back in those brutal days
The party currently in power in Taiwan is not the Kuomintang (which indeed supports eventual unification with China) but a coalition that favours official Taiwanese independence. The main party in this coalition is the Democratic Progressive Party, which is our sister party there.
@Peter: You say The Taiwanese might claim to be more democratic as if that’s not the case, but by any criteria, Taiwan is democratic. It has free elections, universal suffrage, has had peaceful transfers of Government at elections, has a free press and free speech. None of those are true of mainland China. I agree that up to at least 1970 (actually the 1980s) Taiwan was not democratic and arguably not much better than the CCP, but that was 40+ years ago! The situation today is probably more relevant than the situation 40 years ago.
@Adam: I think your post about Taiwan making numerous claims on other countries is misleading. I suspect that what you’re referring to is that for historical reasons, parts of Taiwan’s constitution – inherited from when the Kuomintang were the actual mainland Chinese Government – refer to China’s pre-1949 national boundaries, and that text hasn’t been updated. But that’s just historical text: Taiwan is absolutely not actively pursuing any claims on most of the countries you mention. Indeed, in 2002 Taiwan even formally recognised Mongolia’s independence and exchanged representative offices.
“Taiwan is absolutely not actively pursuing any claims on most of the countries you mention. Indeed, in 2002 Taiwan even formally recognised Mongolia’s independence and exchanged representative offices.”
It’s not quite that simple… Taiwan has sort of recognised that Mongolia is a country, allowing Mongolians to enter Taiwan with a Mongolian passport, but simultaneously retaining the territorial claim as this would “require a constitutional change”. It should be noted that Mongolia and Taiwan don’t have embassies in each others countries, they have “Trade and Economic Representative Offices”. Words mean a great deal as any party who talks about international law should understand.
Claiming that the constitution is merely a historical text is itself somewhat misleading. The reason that the text has not been changed is that it can’t be because the Kuomintang who are the largest single party in the Yuan (52 0f the 113 seats) don’t want it changed. Imagine if the French constitution laid claim to England, but that they “couldn’t change it for historical reasons”, those reasons being that the single largest party in the French parliament were determined that the claim should remain. That would probably have even the most Euro-federalist members of the Liberal Democrats bristling.
There is nothing to stop the Taiwanese Yuan accepting the territorial treaties agreed by the PRC – except for the Kuomintang’s stated belief that the borders of China are those of Qing China. And that ain’t gonna end anytime soon.
Taiwan doesn’t have “Embassies” anywhere except in and for the few countries that still recognise Taiwan rather than the PRC. For all other countries it has “Representative Offices” which perform the functions of embassies but can’t be called as such because Taiwan is not technically a State.