Daddy did it! Donald Trump, designated 'Daddy' by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte for knocking Israeli and Iranian heads together when they were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard', pulled off his second triumph of the week when Nato countries committed themselves to massive increases in defence spending.
'You are now flying to another great success in The Hague,' Rutte told Trump, ramping up the sycophancy while the US President was en route to the Nato summit, hard on the heels of the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire he'd engineered.
Nato members were about to sign up to a historic target of 5 per cent of GDP on military and defence-related spending. 'It wasn't easy,' said Rutte, 'but we got them all to 5 per cent. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your success!'
Nato allies couldn't quite work out if Rutte's smarm was demeaning or inspired. But it certainly worked. The summit went off without a hitch and Trump departed purring contentedly, revelling in his new moniker.
The White House released a video of the President glad-handing Nato leaders with a soundtrack from a song by Usher with the words: 'So all my ladies say, "Hey, hey, hey, Daddy".'
Official merchandise inevitably followed, with Trump fundraisers charging a minimum of $35 (£25) for a T-shirt with 'DADDY' emblazoned under his mugshot.
The orange colour was seen as a nod to Rutte's Dutch nationality, though that might be crediting Team Trump with knowledge it doesn't possess.
The 5 per cent target was chosen primarily with Trump in mind - big and round enough to placate him but divided between spending on armed forces (3.5 per cent of GDP) and so-called defence-related infrastructure (1.5 per cent) to give Nato allies plenty of wiggle room.
Italy is already claiming its decades-long ambition to build an £11billion bridge across the Strait of Messina linking the mainland with Sicily can be included in its 5 per cent commitment because it would facilitate military deployment in the Mediterranean - even though a glance at the map reveals (no surprises here) all of Italy's coastline already has easy access to the Med.
The British were at it too, with ministers arguing that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's obsession with populating the North Sea with wind turbines could be counted towards the 1.5 per cent because it would improve 'energy resilience' (it wouldn't, of course).
At this rate, the 1.5 per cent is at risk of becoming a ragbag into which almost anything can be designated. But Trump was more inclined to take the win than interrogate the numbers.
In truth, most European members of Nato will struggle to meet the 3.5 per cent of proper defence spending, never mind the padded-out 5 per cent. Britain in particular will be a standout laggard. Keir Starmer has committed to raising our current 2.3 per cent of GDP on defence to 2.5 per cent by 2027, a modest rise if ever there was one, given global tensions. After that it's all smoke and mirrors. Only a few weeks ago Starmer would go no further than to say 3 per cent was an 'ambition' for the next parliament. But there was no roadmap, nothing resembling a blueprint for getting there.
Now he's signed up to 3.5 per cent by 2035 but, again, without a scintilla of detail on how we'd reach that. It's comfortably two general elections away, when Starmer will be long gone, his lacklustre team dispatched to the knacker's yard. So why bother?
Some Nato allies are made of sterner stuff. There was pressure to bring forward the 5 per cent target to 2032. As Lithuania’s defence minister starkly pointed out: ‘2035 is after the next war.’ But Starmer was having none of it. He prefers to kick proper spending on rearming into the long grass, even more so now he’s sold the pass on any real savings from welfare reform by surrendering to Labour’s mass of know-nothing backbenchers.
It shows a cavalier disregard for national security in dangerous times. German intelligence recently calculated it would take President Putin seven years to reconstitute Russian forces after the Ukrainian debacle to be strong enough to confront Nato. It has now cut that estimate to five years. The German government is taking that seriously.
'The PM affirms his first duty is the defence of the realm. So why is spending on welfare and health set to soar while defence spending will merely creep upwards for the rest of this decade? Two-tier Keir if ever there was one,' writes Neil
After being one of the worst culprits for defence underspending, Germany is taking the lead in Europe. Under new centre-Right Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, it has loosened its stringent rules on how much the government can borrow to facilitate a massive ramp up of defence spending. Merz has launched a new €500billion (£425billion) rearmament and infrastructure programme.
He aims to reach the new 3.5 per cent Nato target on real defence spending by 2029, six years ahead of schedule, and create the biggest conventional military force in Europe. The contrast with our own government couldn't be more stark.
Other European Nato allies have already set out on the Merz path. Poland spends over 4 per cent of GDP on defence and will soon be closer to 5 per cent, buying over 1,300 new K2 Black Panther tanks and scores of new FA-50 fighter jets from South Korea.
The Baltic States (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) - likely to be on the frontline of any upcoming Russian adventurism - already spend over 3 per cent on defence and are closing in fast on 3.5 per cent.
Nato's newest members, Sweden and Finland, are also ramping up defence spending: Finland aims to hit at least 3 per cent of GDP by 2029; Sweden 3.5 per cent by 2030. Both have, unlike the UK, outlined how they will raise the money and what they will spend it on (the Finns on modernising their already formidable army; the Swedes on air defences and drones).
France, whose fiscal position is even more dire than ours, has nevertheless published plans to reach defence spending of between 3 and 3.5 per cent by 2030.
Under Starmer's uncaring hand, Britain - hitherto the premier Nato power in Europe - is on course to become an also-ran. Ministerial boasts about defence spending only make the Government look disingenuous as well as inadequate. Chancellor Rachel Reeves ludicrously claims the UK is on track to become a 'defence industry superpower', hollow drivel when you look at the few billions extra for defence being eked out of her Treasury.
The distinguished authors of the recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR) averred that they'd sought a commitment to a minimum of 3 per cent on defence from the PM and it had been willingly given. Just as well, they said, since without at least 3 per cent the SDR cannot be implemented. The ink was barely dry on their report before the Government was backpedalling furiously on the 3 per cent.
Starmer affirms that, as PM, his first duty is the defence of the realm. So why is spending on welfare and health set to soar while defence spending will merely creep upwards for the rest of this decade? Two-tier Keir if ever there was one.
As always with this Labour Government, spin and sleight of hand predominate. This week it was announced we'd buy 12 F-35A state of the art fighter jets from America, capable of carrying tactical nuclear bombs.
This would give us, it was claimed, more flexibility in a life-or-death military crisis so that the Trident submarine-based nuclear deterrent, which is really a doomsday weapon, need not be our first nuclear resort.
Fair enough - until it was revealed that the tactical nukes could only be used with the approval of the US President or as part of a US-approved Nato mission. The UK would have no right to their unilateral use even when the homeland was under dire threat. So much for resilience.
When the Starmer Government lies about the reasons behind its U-turns on winter fuel allowance or welfare reform or tax rises, it is only fooling itself.
But when it dissembles on defence it is fooling nobody - least of all our enemies.
As a result - and as long as things stand as they are - the defence of the realm is not safe in its hands. Maybe 'Daddy' should have a word.