Connect with us

World

America First foreign policy ‘profoundly dangerous,' invites multi-front war, eminent historian warns

Published

on

America First foreign policy ‘profoundly dangerous,' invites multi-front war, eminent historian warns

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

FIRST ON FOX – The United States needs to maintain its global focus and efforts to stymie the growing cooperation and ambition of “axis of evil states,” according to historian and journalist Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia. Roberts sits in the British House of Lords.

“When it comes to the axis of evil states, frankly, it’s not the worst thing in the world to have a forever war, especially if you will not actually fight,” Roberts, a biographer of several British leaders, including Winston Churchill, told Fox News Digital. “It can be done for an amount which is a really very impressive return on investment.” 

Advertisement

Roberts, along with retired Gen. David Petraeus, wrote “Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine,” an assessment of U.S. foreign conflict involvement examined through the lens of successful strategic leadership. Roberts is currently working on new chapters for the paperback release, which will focus on the war in Gaza and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitions for Taiwan. 

He argued that the United States, as a global superpower, can and should “walk and chew gum” – so to speak – and that American isolationism would prove “a profoundly dangerous force… not just for the rest of the world but for America as well, ultimately.” 

HOUSE PASSES $60B UKRAINE AID BILL AS GOP REBELS THREATEN TO OUST JOHNSON

China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Ali Khamenei (Getty Images)

“If the United States decides to essentially shrug off the responsibility of a great global superpower that you’ve been really since the Great White Fleet circumnavigated the world in 1909, a long time ago now… one can understand that any titan gets weary,” Roberts said. “However, if you were to embrace isolationism, the ultimate response would be from the alliance of anti-democratic nations that we are seeing is working closer and closer… ultimately it will rebound terribly on you.”

Advertisement

The desire for an “America First” policy has grown stronger as the U.S. faces down two significant conflicts – first from Russia, now in its third year of invading Ukraine, and from the bubbling tension between Iran and Israel.

Some Republicans particularly have opposed the continued funding of Ukraine without a clear plan as to how the conflict could end, raising fears of another “forever war” like those the U.S. maintained in the Middle East over the past two decades. 

Andrew Roberts, the renowned historian and writer, in Windsor, England, Oct. 23. (David Levenson/Getty Images)

House Republicans have worked to condition aid for Ukraine, which has surpassed $113 billion as of March 2024. Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good, R-Va., called for any funding to Ukraine to be balanced out by spending cuts elsewhere and for it to be paired with U.S. border policy changes. The House finally passed the $60 billion funding bill for Ukraine on Saturday.

TRUMP DEMANDS EUROPE COUGH UP MORE CASH FOR UKRAINE, SAYS WAR WITH RUSSIA WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH

Advertisement

“We cannot continue to borrow and spend money we don’t have for wars overseas while failing to protect Americans from the Biden border invasion here at home,” Good told Fox News Digital earlier this month. “At a bare minimum, any package for military aid to Ukraine should be fully offset and must include H.R. 2 with performance metrics to secure our own border.”

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with House Speaker Mike Johnson to discuss additional aid from Congress. (Courtesy Speaker Mike Johnson’s office)

Roberts argued that the U.S., as a “great superpower… some might argue the only superpower” can protect both itself and support allies in a conflict that has proven an “extremely impressive” return on investment. 

“The Ukrainians have taken out well over half of the Russian tank fleet,” Roberts noted. “Now, at any stage in American post-war history, if you offer the president that deal, he’d have snapped it up.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addresses a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill on Dec. 21, 2022. (AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Advertisement

“You’ve got a $825 billion per annum defense budget to spend, [and] less than a 10th of that, take out your opponent’s tank fleet, essentially – at least, over half of it – is an amazing return on investment,” he added. 

‘NOTHING MORE BACKWARDS’ THAN US FUNDING UKRAINE BORDER SECURITY BUT NOT OUR OWN, CONSERVATIVES SAY

“After 20 years of the forever war in Afghanistan before Biden’s, in my view, outrageous scuttle from that country, you’d got it down to the situation where no Americans had died for 18 months, and the whole American cost of this conflict was down to about 20 to $25 billion a year,” he said. “That’s an amazing thing, to be able to keep the Taliban out of power.”

Ukrainian servicemen fire with a D-30 howitzer at Russian positions near Bakhmut, eastern Ukraine, on March 21, 2023. (Sergey Shestak/AFP via Getty Images)

However, Roberts stressed that there should remain limits to the U.S. ambitions overseas, dismissing the idea that Washington should seek Russian regime change as “not our duty, not our job, not our responsibility, and certainly not a very sensible thing.” 

Advertisement

“The obvious reason is that it would just stoke anti-Western nationalism in Russia,” he explained. “No, they can do those things themselves, and I think the point at which they might do that is, as has happened so often in history, when Russian aggression has been shown not to succeed.”

Firefighters battle a blaze after a Russian attack on apartment buildings in Uman, south of Kiev, Ukraine, April 28, 2023. (National Police of Ukraine via AP)

Roberts lamented, though, that Russia has made strides in Ukraine’s easternmost territories, with a breakthrough on the front and potentially bigger gains to come “if the West doesn’t help Ukraine more.”

Indeed, more and more analysts and commentators have grown increasingly dismal about Ukraine’s potential successes: The BBC, Politico EU and other outlets in the last week have run articles discussing why and how Ukraine could face defeat this year. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says any victory hinges on continued funding from allies to keep pace with Russia.

Roberts suggested that such doomsday prophecies may prove premature, stressing that “there’s no such thing as inevitability in history.”

Advertisement

“So many times in history, you’ve seen one thing about to happen and then the opposite happens,” Roberts mused. “These breakthroughs the Russians are having in certain theaters… not major ones so far, but they are fighting with a shell advantage, and that’s because the United States and Europe are not providing the shells.”

“It’s certainly not inevitable that either the Ukrainians win or lose that war unless, of course, we stopped providing them with the wherewithal to continue to fight,” he warned. “It’s them that are putting up in the blood, huge amounts of it, but simply because Russia is a bigger country does not mean that it’s automatically going to win: If that was the case, you’d have won in Vietnam.”

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Advertisement

World

On the South Lawn, a UFC fighter’s victory frames an unusual White House scene

Published

on

On the South Lawn, a UFC fighter’s victory frames an unusual White House scene

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mark Schiefelbein has been based in Washington, D.C., with AP for about three years, and before that spent a decade in Beijing at AP’s China bureau.

Here’s what he had to say about this extraordinary photo.

Why this photo?

This was an event that had never happened before in the 250-year history of the United States and may never happen again: a night of mixed martial-arts cage match brawls on the South Lawn of the White House, with bloodied competitors battling it out in front of the president, vice president, and other leaders of the country. AP had other photographers ringside at the event focusing more on the fights themselves. So I felt my role was to capture the context of the evening — the location, the people in attendance, the environment.

How I made this photo

A small group of other photographers and I, the White House press pool, had been allowed to photograph part of the evening from a position in the stands directly opposite the White House. I was carrying four cameras with a variety of lenses from 12 mm to 300 mm. This let me capture everything from ultra-wide views of the “claw” structure built for the fights, to close-ups of leaders and celebrities in attendance. I had been following Diego Lopes with my longest lens as he moved around the ring celebrating his win over Steve Garcia. When I saw him start to climb onto the cage, I immediately realized there might be a possibility of a picture like this and zoomed out to capture more of the scene.

Advertisement


Advertisement

Why this photo works

The White House is surely one of the most recognizable buildings in the world. The columns of the South Portico, the fighter standing with arms and legs spread wide in celebration, and the octagon padding of the UFC ring tell an entire story as your eyes move from top to bottom of the frame. With Lopes standing with his back to the camera, facing the White House, it becomes less a photo of him and more about the evening, the event, and the spectacle. It was fortunate that it was after nightfall, so things that might have been distracting, like the Marine Band and spectators seated behind the ring, are mostly in the dark. Only the key elements – the White House, Lopes, and the ring are lit up.

For more extraordinary AP photography, click here.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

World

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces potential leadership challenge from newly-elected Andy Burnham

Published

on

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces potential leadership challenge from newly-elected Andy Burnham

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Andy Burnham has officially won his special election and regained a seat in Parliament, setting him up to challenge the deeply unpopular Keir Starmer as the leader of the Labour party and as prime minister.

Burnham, currently the mayor of Greater Manchester in northwest England, won a seat in Makerfield and came away with 55% of the vote in a field of more than a dozen candidates, according to The Associated Press. The runner-up was Rob Kenyon of Reform UK, a right-wing populist party, who received more than 9,000 fewer votes than Burnham.

Burnham last served as a member of Parliament in 2017 but strongly implied in his victory speech that he is returning with the intention to lead the United Kingdom.

“Everyone knows that politics isn’t working. Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could, just could, be the turning point,” he said, according to the AP. “This result will bring about a country that works fairly for everywhere and for everybody.”

Advertisement

TRUMP ALLY NIGEL FARAGE DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO STARMER IN LOCAL UK ELECTIONS AS RESIGNATION CALLS MOUNT

Britain’s Labour party candidate Andy Burnham speaks to supporters after the Makerfield by-election in Ashton in Makerfield, England, on Friday, June 19, 2026. (Jon Super/AP)

This special election, called by-elections in Britain, was unusually significant because the area’s Labour MP, Josh Simons, intentionally resigned to allow Burnham to win the seat and pursue leadership.

The potentially outsized impact of this election was juxtaposed with the strange scene that unfolded when all the candidates gathered on Friday morning to hear the results. Burnham stood in between an independent candidate dressed in a fox costume and another candidate known as “Count Binface”.

As his name suggests, “Count Binface,” whose real name is Jonathan David Harvey, was wearing a trash can on his head and regularly runs in U.K. elections to advocate for increased voter turnout.

Advertisement

Starmer congratulated Burnham in a social media post on X, saying voters “chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate.”

When asked about Burnham’s intentions to oust him as leader, Starmer said he will fight to remain prime minister, a position he has held for nearly two years.

“I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that,” Starmer told reporters.

Labour party candidate Andy Burnham, center, stands with other candidates on the podium at the Edge Wigan, awaiting the Makerfield by-election result announcement in Wigan, England, on Friday, June 19, 2026. (Jon Super/AP)

AS EPSTEIN-LINKED APPOINTMENT SPARKS BACKLASH, UK PM STARMER FACES PARTY REVOLT AMID RESIGNATION CALLS

Advertisement

Starmer led the Labour party to a landslide victory in July 2024 and ever since, his popularity has been eroding thanks to a persistently high cost of living, an anemic economy and a scandal over his willingness to accept gifts from wealthy donors.

Last September, Starmer was slammed for appointing Peter Mandelson as the British ambassador to the United States, when it was known as early as 2019 that Mandelson had a friendship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Following an enormous public backlash, Mandelson was quickly dismissed from his post.

With Starmer as leader, Labour is increasingly losing liberal-minded voters to the Green Party, while also facing stronger challenges by Reform UK, a Nigel Farage-led party that advocates against mass migration and in favor of tighter border controls. Farage, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, said he was disappointed by Burnham’s victory.

Burnham is expected to head to London to be sworn in as soon as Monday. Under the British parliamentary system, the governing party can hold leadership elections in the middle of the term. The winner of such a contest can become prime minister without there having to be a national election.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer awaits Switzerland’s Federal President Guy Parmelin on the sidelines of the G7 summit, in Evian-les-Bains, France, on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 (Isabel Infantes/Pool Reuters via AP)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Under Labour rules, a lawmaker can challenge the leader if they win the backing of a fifth of their party’s members in the House of Commons. Burnham has enough lawmakers on board to trigger a leadership contest, according to a report from The New Statesman.

According to the AP, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Burnham and Starmer will “have a conversation about what comes next” in the next few days.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

‘Not our Europe’: Macron and Sánchez slam return hubs for migrants

Published

on

‘Not our Europe’: Macron and Sánchez slam return hubs for migrants

French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have issued a blistering rebuke against deportation camps outside the European Union, setting their countries on a collision course with a growing political majority.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

During a summit on Friday, 19 leaders across the bloc signed a joint declaration calling to make “full use” of a new European law that enables the construction of so-called return hubs to host migrants whose asylum applications have been denied.

The coalition, led by Denmark and Italy, two fierce advocates of outsourcing, wants to “move forward with solutions based in third countries as soon as possible”.

But for Macron and Sánchez, this path runs counter to European values and risks squandering financial resources and undercutting relations with neighbouring Africa.

Advertisement

“I am not sure that this is our Europe. I don’t know if these are the fundamental principles on which our Europe was built,” Macron said at the end of the summit on Friday.

“And I don’t think it’s effective, either. The proof is that I have not seen anyone make it work so far,” he went on, underscoring his strong dissatisfaction. (Italy has set up migration centres on Albanian soil but has fallen short of expected targets.)

“I have a lot of respect for anyone who wants to do it. I disagree, both pragmatically and in principle. I think it has nothing to do with European politics.”

Macron said his country was in favour of tougher laws to curb irregular arrivals but drew a red line on the physical transfer of migrants to faraway countries where they have never set foot. That possibility, long considered taboo, is allowed under a revamped Return Regulation described as the “strictest-ever” migration law.

“There is a question, in fact, around these famous return hubs in third countries. France does not support this policy. We are in favour of a more effective return policy. But first of all, I have never seen a return hub in a third country operate,” Macron went on.

Advertisement

“I invite you to consider what it is (in practice): this means that people who do not want to return to their country of origin or who cannot get back to their country of origin will be pushed into a third country, which will accept them in return for money.”

Macron mocked the jargonistic term “innovative solutions” that proponents of migration offshoring often use in their public communication and challenged the notion that host countries would respect human rights in exchange for financial incentives.

“I am a big supporter of innovation in my country,” he said, saying he would later attend the Vivatech festival in Paris. “But I am always very careful when talking about innovation in values and human rights. Allow me to have that reservation.”

Meanwhile, Sánchez, a vocal critic of the measures, said the deportation camps would be an “absolutely inefficient” and “worthless” response to irregular migration.

“It’s a mirage, if you will, that it will simply waste economic resources, and Europe doesn’t have many,” the Spaniard said after the summit in Brussels.

Advertisement

“Secondly, it sends a wrong message to those countries of origin and transit with which we should be collaborating, cooperating and showing empathy towards.”

Macron echoed Sánchez’s reputational concerns and insisted he would not allow EU funds to be used in any capacity to build the deportation camps, which are “neither effective nor do they correspond with our principles”.

“Sometimes, we hear one or the other (country) advocate policies with the African continent, so good luck defending our credibility on these continents by explaining that we will use the money for investments to build return hubs on their continents,” he said.

“What world do we live in?”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending