UK Should Consider Expelling US Forces from British Bases, Says Zack Polanski
Green Party leader sparks debate over UK’s military dependence on the United States.
In a bold and provocative statement, Zack Polanski, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, has suggested that the United Kingdom should seriously consider expelling US forces from British military bases. Polanski argues that Britain’s reliance on American military support has grown too strong and that the country should rethink its defence strategy in an era of unpredictable US leadership.
Why Polanski is Raising This Issue
Polanski made the comments on the Politics Weekly UK podcast and in several interviews. He highlighted that Britain’s security is heavily intertwined with US priorities and warned that relying on America is risky, especially when leadership in Washington can change the course of foreign policy overnight.
“It’s pretty worrying that we’ve allowed ourselves to become so reliant on American interests,” Polanski said, emphasizing the need for strategic independence.
He argues that this is not just about military presence but also about sovereignty, political autonomy, and resilience in the face of unpredictable geopolitical challenges.
The Context: US-UK Tensions and Greenland Row
Polanski’s comments arrive amid heightened transatlantic tensions. The Greenland tariff controversy under US President Donald Trump has alarmed European leaders and highlighted the potential volatility of relying heavily on the US.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged diplomacy and caution, stressing that maintaining alliances remains crucial, but Polanski sees this as a moment to reconsider the UK’s dependence on foreign forces.
Polanski’s Proposals for UK Defence
Polanski outlined a series of ideas for the UK’s strategic future:
Review US military presence: Consider removing 10,000 US troops stationed at UK bases.
Reduce reliance on American defence technology: Question contracts and cooperation on sensitive technologies.
Reevaluate nuclear deterrent Trident: Examine whether UK nuclear capabilities remain dependent on US support.
Strengthen alliances outside the US: Build stronger European and global South partnerships.
Comprehensive strategic defence review: Factor in climate change, cyber threats, and non-traditional security risks.
His proposals reflect a vision for a UK that is less dependent on external powers and more focused on autonomous decision-making in national security.
Political Reactions
The reaction to Polanski’s statements has been mixed:
Supporters praise his push for UK strategic autonomy and see the US as sometimes unpredictable in its foreign policy.
Critics warn that expelling US forces could damage the “special relationship” and reduce Britain’s influence in NATO.
Analysts stress that without major investment in UK defence, the move could leave gaps in national security.
The debate touches on long-standing questions about sovereignty, international cooperation, and the balance between independence and alliance commitments.
Implications for NATO and Global Security
Polanski’s remarks also raise broader questions about the UK’s role within NATO, an alliance established during the Cold War. While he stops short of advocating leaving NATO, he suggests that Britain must consider its long-term security beyond American oversight.
This includes preparing for non-traditional threats like climate change, cyberattacks, and evolving geopolitical challenges that might not align with US priorities.
Public Opinion
Polls indicate that the British public is divided:
Some support reducing reliance on the US and taking a more independent stance.
Others fear weakening alliances could compromise national security.
The conversation reflects broader unease about the UK’s future defence strategy and the balance between independence and international cooperation.
Conclusion
Zack Polanski’s call to consider expelling US forces from British bases has ignited debate over sovereignty, security, and strategic independence. While controversial, it raises important questions about whether the UK can maintain security and influence in a world where alliances are increasingly tested by unpredictable global events.
Whether Polanski’s proposals gain traction remains uncertain, but they underscore the ongoing discussion about Britain’s role on the global stage and its ability to make independent defence decisions.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Aarif Lashari and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Trump Tariffs Over Greenland Are an Error, Says Ursula von der Leyen
The tensions between the U.S. and Europe escalated this week when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen criticized President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs linked to Greenland. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, von der Leyen called the tariffs a strategic mistake that could damage trust and cooperation between long-standing allies.
By Aarif Lashariabout 24 hours ago in The Swamp
World Stock Markets Brace for Turbulence After Trump’s Latest Tariff Shock
Global financial markets are entering a period of heightened uncertainty following former U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest tariff announcement. Investors across Europe, Asia, and North America are adjusting portfolios, recalculating risks, and bracing for potential volatility in the weeks and months ahead. Analysts warn that Trump’s tariff decisions, whether focused on China, the EU, or specific sectors, have the potential to reshape international trade flows and investor sentiment.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
When Harry Reid Went Nuclear
In November 2013, a quiet but historic shift took place on the floor of the United States Senate. It did not involve explosions, foreign conflict, or dramatic speeches delivered to roaring crowds. Instead, it involved procedure—an often-overlooked but powerful force in American politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a decision that would permanently change how the Senate operates. This moment came to be known as the day Harry Reid “went nuclear.” To understand why this mattered, it helps to first understand how the Senate traditionally worked. The Filibuster and Senate Tradition For decades, the U.S. Senate prided itself on being the chamber of extended debate. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate allowed unlimited discussion on most issues. This tradition gave rise to the filibuster, a tactic that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote by refusing to end debate. To stop a filibuster, the Senate needs to invoke cloture, which historically required 60 votes. This supermajority rule was meant to encourage compromise and protect minority voices. In theory, it slowed down extreme legislation. In practice, it increasingly became a tool for gridlock. By the early 2010s, the filibuster was no longer rare. It had become routine. A Senate Stuck in Neutral When Barack Obama entered his second term as president, Democrats controlled the Senate, but Republicans used the filibuster to block many of Obama’s nominees. These were not just cabinet-level officials. Judicial nominees, including those for federal appeals courts, were routinely stalled. Harry Reid, a seasoned senator from Nevada, watched as vacancies piled up. Courts were understaffed. Executive agencies struggled to function. Reid argued that this level of obstruction went beyond legitimate opposition and threatened the government’s ability to operate. Republicans countered that the filibuster was a vital check on majority power. To them, Democrats were simply frustrated that they could not push nominees through without resistance. The tension reached a breaking point in November 2013. The Nuclear Option Explained The “nuclear option” is not an official Senate rule. It is a procedural maneuver that allows the Senate to reinterpret its rules by a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote requirement. On November 21, 2013, Harry Reid used this option to eliminate the filibuster for most presidential nominations. From that day forward, executive branch nominees and federal judicial nominees—except for Supreme Court justices—could be confirmed with a simple majority of 51 votes. It was a dramatic move. Many senators, including some Democrats, warned that it would weaken the Senate’s unique role. Reid himself had previously opposed the nuclear option. But in that moment, he argued that extraordinary obstruction required extraordinary action. Immediate Reactions and Fallout The reaction was swift and intense. Democrats praised the move as necessary and overdue. They argued that elections should have consequences and that a president deserved to staff his administration and the courts. To them, the Senate had become dysfunctional, and Reid’s decision restored basic governance. Republicans were furious. They accused Reid of breaking the Senate and destroying a tradition that had stood for over a century. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would regret the decision when they were no longer in power. That warning would later prove prophetic. Long-Term Consequences At first, the impact seemed limited. President Obama was able to fill judicial vacancies, including seats on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court. The executive branch regained momentum. But the precedent had been set. In 2017, when Republicans gained control of the Senate and Donald Trump became president, they expanded the nuclear option. This time, it was applied to Supreme Court nominations, allowing Justice Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority. What began as a targeted procedural fix became a fundamental shift in how power is exercised in the Senate. Was It a Mistake or a Necessity? Whether Harry Reid’s decision was right or wrong depends largely on perspective. Supporters argue that the Senate was already broken. They point out that the filibuster was being used more than ever before, not to encourage debate but to block routine governance. From this view, Reid did not break the system—he exposed how fragile it had already become. Critics argue that Reid accelerated the Senate’s decline. By removing the incentive for compromise, they say, the nuclear option turned the Senate into a body that increasingly resembles the House, driven by narrow majorities and partisan swings. Both arguments carry weight, which is why the moment remains so controversial. A Defining Legacy Harry Reid retired from the Senate in 2017 and passed away in 2021. Among his many accomplishments, the nuclear option stands out as one of the most consequential. It reshaped judicial confirmations, altered the balance of power between parties, and changed how future majorities would govern. More importantly, it forced Americans to confront a difficult question: how much tradition should be preserved when it no longer serves its intended purpose?
By Saboor Brohi 3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.