Drone wall

The EU heads of government—and the British Prime Minister—have given their go-ahead to establish a “drone wall” on the border with Russia.

The move follows Russian invasions by jet fighters of Estonian, Polish and Romanian air space; a cyber attack which closed Berlin Airport and drone activity which closed Copenhagen and Oslo Airports.

The plan is to deploy a multi-layered “drone wall” to quickly detect, track and destroy Russian drones. A nirvana for anyone who has grown to adulthood with hand attached to a joystick.

Ten allies are providing anti-drone and surveillance support. They include: Poland, the UK, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the US. Sweden has loaned “powerful radar systems” and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky said Kyiv was sending a mission to Denmark for joint exercises to provide “Ukrainian experience in drone defence”.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said ahead of the summit that airspace incursions were getting worse and that it was “reasonable to assume the drones are coming from Russia”.

“We are not at war, but we are no longer at peace either. We must do much more for our own security.” .
.
Another flagship project, called Eastern Flank Watch, is aimed at fortifying the EU’s eastern borders by sea, air and land to protect against so-called hybrid warfare, as well as from Russia’s shadow fleet .Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen said the EU would have to collaborate on this with both Nato and Ukraine.

EU leaders will be shown plans for a “road map” aimed at bolstering defences and developing Europe’s defence industries by the end of the decade to produce state-of-the-art military equipment. The plans will then be worked on with Nato before EU leaders meet again later this month.

According to the plans for being “2030-ready”, Europe needs to move now so its capabilities are prepared for “the battlefields of tomorrow”.

One of the core ideas is to increasingly focus on joint procurement. The EU has already backed proposals to raise up to $150 billion on capital markets to help fund defence investment. The UK and Canada are likely to take part in the fund.

Democrats’ shutdown gamble

The Democrats are taking a big gamble in forcing a shutdown of the government.

They are doing it because they want Donald Trump to perform a u-turn on his plans to cut funds to Medicaid and Obamacare. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill is said to increase health costs by up to 75 percent.

But the danger is that Trump will use the shutdown to cut a host of other programmes dear to the hearts of Democratic congressman. Already Russel Vought, who as director of the Office and Management Budget would be responsible for wielding the axe, has hinted that he will cut £26 billion allocated by Congress for projects in the democratic stronghold of New York City.

On Thursday Trump underscored his desire for partisan cuts. He said: “We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for [Democrats] and irreversible by them. Like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like.

“ And you all know Russell Vought, he’s become very popular recently because he can trim the budget to a level that you couldn’t do any other way. So they’re taking a risk by having a shutdown because of the shutdown, we can do things medically, and other ways, including benefits. We can cut large numbers of people out.”

Later Trump added on his Truth Social Platform. “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

The Democrats argue that Trump would have likely made the cuts anyway and that—although it’s a gamble—forcing a shutdown is the only to save a 75 increase in medical costs for millions of Americans.

The White House has confirmed, however, that two projects will go ahead despite the shutdown: $20 billion in aid for Trump’s Latin America, President Javier Millei in Argentina and the president’s planned ballroom for the White House.

Turning cities into military training grounds

It was not until the 44th minute of a 70-minute disjointed and rambling speech before America’s top brass that a possible hint emerged as to the purpose of the meeting.

Trump’s long-winded and tedious speech followed that of Pete Hesgeth, Secretary for the renamed Department of War. He called the unprecedented meeting which dragged in important senior military personnel from around the world.

They sat stoney-faced as Hesgeth told them he wanted them to adopt a “warrior ethos”. To that end, beards are banned; there will be physical fitness tests twice a year and women must meet the same physical standards of their male colleagues. Not exactly an earth shattering list and definitely not worth the expense and threat to security of dragging the generals and admirals across the world.

But back to that 44th minute when Trump dropped the following one-liner: “I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for the military.”

That is a red flag to most career military men. They are used to fighting America’s overseas enemies not America’s citizens even if the president regards them as his enemies.

The president has either ordered or threatened to order sending National Guard troops into Washington DC, Chicago, Memphis, Los Angeles, Boston and Portland. It should be noted that all are Democrat-run cities.

The legal basis for this is a bit hazy. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the president cannot use the military for domestic purposes—Unless—he invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which is exactly what Trump has done. He has declared the cities in a state of “insurrection,” and under the terms of the Insurrection Act, he can keep troops in place as long as he wants.

That is if two things don’t happen: 1- A court rules that he has acted illegally or 2- Congress rules that he has acted illegally. With Republican control of Congress the latter is not possible at the moment. But the federal court in California has ruled that Trump acted illegally in Los Angeles. Unfortunately—following a recent Supreme Court ruling—the court’s ruling only applies to California. So, for the moment at least, Trump has a free hand to deploy his soldiers as he wishes. The stoney-faced generals, admirals can either lump it or resign.
.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”