Analysis of: Trump ‘wrong’ to diminish role of UK troops and Nato in Afghanistan, says No 10 – UK politics live
The Guardian | January 23, 2026
TL;DR
NATO allies condemn Trump's dismissal of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan as inter-imperialist tensions fracture the Western alliance. This reveals how military sacrifice by working-class troops is weaponized for capitalist geopolitical maneuvering.
Donald Trump's false claim that NATO allies 'stayed a little back' from frontline combat in Afghanistan has provoked unusual bipartisan condemnation across the British political spectrum, from Labour ministers to Conservative Brexiteers. This diplomatic rupture illuminates deeper contradictions within the Western imperialist alliance that have been intensifying since the 2008 financial crisis and accelerating under conditions of American relative decline. The outrage centers on the 457 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan—working-class men and women who served as the human material for a two-decade imperial occupation justified by 'collective security.' Yet the framing of this controversy obscures the fundamental class dynamics: regardless of which imperial power claims credit, the Afghanistan war served primarily the interests of military contractors, resource extraction corporations, and geostrategic positioning—not the working classes of any nation involved. Danish screenwriter Adam Price's observation that Denmark 'lost more soldiers per head than any other country' inadvertently reveals how smaller NATO members provided disproportionate working-class sacrifice to maintain their standing within American-led imperialism. The political responses demonstrate the ideological function of military nationalism. Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Ulster Unionist politicians unite in defending 'our troops' while Nigel Farage faces pressure to distance himself from his American ally. This manufactured consensus around military honor serves to legitimate the imperial project itself while redirecting anger away from the systemic exploitation of soldiers toward a personality dispute between ruling-class figures. The real contradiction—that working-class people are sent to kill and die for capitalist interests they don't share—remains safely unexamined.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Working-class military personnel (British, American, Danish soldiers), Political ruling class (Trump, Starmer, Badenoch, Farage), Military-industrial complex beneficiaries, Military families positioned as moral authorities
Beneficiaries: Defense contractors and military-industrial complex, British political establishment (opportunity to display patriotic credentials), Labour government (brief respite from internal conflicts over Burnham), Opponents of Reform UK (Farage-Trump association becomes liability)
Harmed Parties: Working-class soldiers who died or were wounded in Afghanistan, Military families instrumentalized for political purposes, Afghan civilians (entirely absent from this discourse), Reform UK's electoral prospects among women voters
The controversy reveals fracturing hegemony within the Western imperial bloc. Trump represents a faction of American capital seeking unilateral extraction of benefits from the alliance, while British elites defend their subordinate but privileged position within NATO. Working-class soldiers and their families serve as moral currency in this elite dispute, with their sacrifice invoked but their material interests—adequate veterans' care, mental health support, economic alternatives to military service—remaining unaddressed.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: NATO burden-sharing disputes over military spending percentages, American relative economic decline driving 'America First' extraction, British defense budget constraints post-Brexit, Military recruitment dependent on working-class economic precarity
The Afghanistan war represented a massive transfer of public resources to private defense contractors while extracting labor (including ultimate sacrifice) from working-class military personnel. The current dispute is fundamentally about which national bourgeoisie can claim credit for this expenditure of working-class lives. Reform UK's recruitment of Conservative councillors with promises of 'funding, roles, and cabinet positions' parallels how military service is marketed to working-class youth—promises of advancement within hierarchical structures that serve elite interests.
Resources at Stake: NATO military infrastructure and command relationships, British diplomatic standing and 'special relationship' status, Political capital of military nationalism across parties, Reform UK's electoral viability tied to Farage-Trump association
Historical Context
Precedents: Post-9/11 Article 5 invocation—first and only time in NATO history, Vietnam War debates over allied contributions, Suez Crisis 1956—previous rupture of Anglo-American relations, Inter-war period tensions between imperial powers
This episode reflects the recurring pattern of inter-imperialist rivalry during periods of hegemonic transition. As American dominance erodes and multipolarity emerges, the post-WWII alliance structures built on American supremacy face increasing strain. Trump's transactional approach—dismissing allied sacrifice while demanding payment—represents the logic of declining hegemony attempting to extract maximum value from existing relationships. The British response demonstrates the anxieties of a secondary imperial power whose global influence depends on its 'special relationship' with the dominant power.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction between the rhetoric of 'collective security' and the reality of imperial wars serving narrow class interests. Politicians must honor working-class soldiers' sacrifice while maintaining the system that exploits them.
Secondary: Farage's position as both Trump ally and British nationalist now untenable, Labour's anti-Trump rhetoric contradicts its general alignment with NATO imperialism, Conservative critics of Trump remain committed to the 'special relationship' he undermines, Military nationalism unites parties while policing reforms threaten working-class communities
Short-term, this controversy will be managed through diplomatic back-channels while public outrage is channeled into patriotic nationalism. Medium-term, NATO structural tensions will deepen regardless of rhetorical reconciliation. The fundamental contradiction—working-class soldiers dying for capitalist interests—will remain suppressed until material conditions (economic crisis, new wars, veterans' movements) force its emergence into political consciousness.
Global Interconnections
This diplomatic row cannot be separated from broader shifts in the global imperial order. Trump's Greenland demands, his confusion of Iceland with Greenland, and his dismissal of NATO allies all reflect American capital's increasingly desperate attempts to maintain hegemony through direct territorial acquisition and alliance extraction rather than the post-WWII model of hegemonic consent. The simultaneous story of Reform UK recruiting Conservative councillors with promises of positions reveals how this realignment operates domestically—the far-right consolidates as traditional conservatism fragments under imperial decline's pressures. The proposed police reforms mentioned in the article—consolidating 43 forces into larger regional units—connect to this broader picture. As economic contradictions intensify and working-class discontent grows, the state restructures its coercive apparatus. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners' warning that larger forces risk 'separation between police forces and the local communities they serve' inadvertently acknowledges police function as class control rather than community service.
Conclusion
The Trump-NATO controversy offers a teachable moment for class-conscious analysis: when ruling-class figures from across the political spectrum unite in outrage, examine what they're actually defending. Here, they defend not working-class soldiers but the legitimacy of imperial wars and Britain's position within the American-led order. The 457 dead British soldiers were working-class people whose deaths served interests fundamentally opposed to their own class. Genuine solidarity with military families means not merely honoring sacrifice but questioning the system that demands it—and building movements that offer young working-class people futures beyond serving as expendable labor for imperial projects. The fracturing NATO alliance presents both dangers of intensified militarism and opportunities for anti-imperialist organizing as the contradictions of the current order become increasingly visible.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and how capitalist powers inevitably come into conflict over the division of the world directly illuminates the NATO tensions Trump's comments reveal.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's examination of how the state serves class interests helps decode how military nationalism functions to unite classes behind ruling-class wars while suppressing recognition of workers' distinct interests.
- Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (1997) Parenti's accessible analysis of how fascism and imperialism serve capitalist interests provides context for understanding the Farage-Trump alliance and its contradictions with British nationalism.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' and analysis of American imperial strategies helps explain Trump's transactional approach to alliances and territorial demands like Greenland.