- In an interview with Anadolu's Strategic Analysis Department, former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy Rachel Ellehuus, currently director general at London-based think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), assessed Britain’s evolving defense posture, strategic alignment between the US and the EU, the impact of regional crises in the Middle East on UK foreign policy, and the critical role of Türkiye in shaping European security and regional cooperation.
ISTANBUL
Q: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has voiced support for a defense pact with the European Union. So, what is the UK's stance on deeper European defense integration, including the proposals for a unified European army?
Ellehuus: I've been pleasantly surprised at Prime Minister Starmer's leadership, both on Ukraine and in trying to create a closer relationship, with continental Europe. I think both on the European continent and in the United Kingdom, people understand that you cannot have a meaningful European defense or strong relationship with Ukraine without the United Kingdom. When he talks about a defense pact with Europe, I believe that he is thinking about everything from cooperation in terms of coordinating assistance to Ukraine and integrating their forces and capabilities more closely into European ones, to defense, industrial cooperation.
If you look at the United Kingdom's defense industry, they have close relationships with US companies, but they also have very close and integrated relationships with continental European defense companies. If you take a capability, for example, like the A400M transport aircraft, that has a Rolls-Royce engine, so there are a lot of dependencies and cooperative partnerships on the industrial side. Though leadership capabilities and industrial cooperation is what Prime Minister Starmer has in mind.
Q: There is a rise in transatlantic trade tension and the risk of new US tariffs on European countries as well. In this environment, how is the United Kingdom navigating its strategic balance between the United States and EU?
Ellehuus: Well, I hope that someone is explaining to President (Donald) Trump that tariffs on Europe and the UK actually increase the price of US defense equipment for those countries, making it less affordable. So, in effect, we're actually not supporting our own ambition of having Europeans step up on defense while also remaining close to the United States and buying into the US defense-industrial complex. So I hope that will change, because certainly tariffs will make the defense spending of the euro or pound go less far.
Q: Including Syria and the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, how the UK is responding and to what extent are their responses interconnected with the United States' strategic priorities in the region?
Ellehuus: My impression is that most countries' (in Europe) response to what's going on in the Middle East is partly a reflection of their foreign policy vision, but to some extent, it's also a reflection of their domestic policies. So countries, for example, who have a close relationship with Israel tend to be more careful on their language criticizing Israel. Conversely, countries who have, you know, a large Palestinian population tend to be a little bit more sympathetic to the Palestinians’ cause, and the UK is probably somewhere in between. They have a close relationship with Israel, but the Labour Party government has been quite critical of the human rights abuses that are going on there and joined with other European countries – including a former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert – to criticize what are perceived war crimes in the region by Israel. But at the same time, despite that close relationship with Israel, the UK has had a strong moral voice. The Labour Party government feels very strongly that there are certain rules and norms that have been disrespected and has not been afraid to speak out on that.
On Syria, I believe the UK government is quite hopeful that there is an opportunity here for Syria to normalize and reestablish itself as an independent country in the region. They were very supportive of the Trump administration's decision to lift the sanctions and will probably follow suit. So I believe the UK is more aligned with the US position on Syria and probably less aligned, with the US course of action when it comes to balancing views on Israel and Gaza.
Q: On May 20, the United Kingdom suspended talks on a trade deal with Israel and summoned the country's ambassador, also imposing new sanctions on Israeli West Bank settlers. So in light of these developments, how is the UK balancing its diplomatic relations with Israel, the countries of the Middle East, and its commitments to international law and human rights?
Ellehuus: Well, you've focused in on the right thing, which is democracy and respect for human rights and I believe that's where the United Kingdom's focus has been. On the one hand, they support Israel's right to exist as an independent state. But they want to see an Israel that is a democracy and does respect human rights. And I think the sanctions that you mentioned are a recognition that they believe Israel is currently moving in the wrong direction and they want to compel a change in behavior by sending a signal, that that is not the direction or the behavior that they would expect of Israel.
The United Kingdom sees Türkiye as a very important partner in the region, and is quite comfortable with Türkiye taking a leading role in terms of reconciliation and redevelopment in Syria. And really providing a bit of guidance on the strategic direction, that Syria should take and how the Middle East could come together in a more cohesive way, given all of these various changes. And so I think it's a real asset for the UK over the decades to have had a very close relationship with Türkiye. I think they can really work together, to understand the region, to listen to voices in the region and come up with some solutions that are not imposed from the outside, but are really reflective of the views of, of Türkiye, Jordan, and others in the region.
Q: We’re witnessing a redefinition of security in both Europe and the Middle East. In this evolving landscape, how could Türkiye contribute to shaping a new vision of European security as well as advancing European-Turkish cooperation in the Middle East? What frameworks or mechanisms might underpin such a cooperation?
Ellehuus: Türkiye is one of the strongest NATO allies, especially in terms of the size and capability of its land forces. Its geographic position on the alliance’s easternmost flank gives it strategic importance, especially in terms of military reach and the basing opportunities it offers to NATO. The Turkish defense industry has been instrumental in resupplying Ukraine, (as) from the US perspective, Türkiye was the only country that had the capability and the production capacity to produce the 155-mm munitions that Ukraine needed. The United States saw that and partnered with Turkish industry to really ramp up production on that ammunition's supply chain. So I think there's real value there.
I don't believe any sort of viable European defense can be achieved without countries who are not members of the European Union. In fact, if you look at NATO, 80% of the defense spending and capability in the alliance is provided by countries who are not members of the European Union. The US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Türkiye, all of those countries have the bulk of the capability and the spending. If we really are talking about continuing to help Ukraine, rearming Europe, Türkiye has to be a central part of that. I would like to see this happen in NATO, because I think NATO has important structures in terms of command and control planning, capability development, command structure, that need to be leveraged.
But because of some of the difficulties among allies within that NATO context and some of the disagreements and barriers to NATO-EU cooperation, we might have to take that cooperation outside of NATO and work with like-minded allies, in order to drive that partnership with Türkiye and then bring those ideas back into the European Union or NATO. So I could see the EU working very closely again with the United Kingdom and Norway. And in the early days of the (second) Trump administration, when the United States created doubts about its commitment to Ukraine, it was really powerful to see President Erdogan standing alongside Prime Minister Starmer, and the Norwegian prime minister in London presenting a united front with regard to European security and helping Ukraine. I think these smaller regional groupings can help drive progress within the bigger organizations.
