X Close

Will David Cameron cause WW3? The 'special relationship' is a British fantasy

Lord Calamity (Omar Havana/Getty Images)

Lord Calamity (Omar Havana/Getty Images)


April 12, 2024   6 mins

It’s hard to imagine a better metaphor for the miserable state of UK politics than David Cameron flying across the Atlantic in the hope of convincing America to continue funding a bloody war on Europe’s doorstep — only to fail miserably. Over the past few days, the Foreign Secretary has met with a number of representatives of the Biden administration, as well as with key Republican leaders (including Trump himself), in an effort to unblock US funding for Ukraine. But in a continuation of his disastrous foreign-policy record, he has so far failed to raise a single dime.

Cameron used all the usual arguments: the rational, the emotional and the downright cynical. He said that if Russia isn’t defeated in Ukraine it will feel emboldened to invade other countries; and that Western support for Ukraine is “extremely good value for money”, as it has weakened Russia, created jobs at home and strengthened Nato “without the loss of a single American life”. He even gave an emotional performance in which he likened US support for Ukraine’s heroic struggle to his “grandfather landing on the Normandy beaches under the cover of an American warship”.

However, Republican hardliners who have been blocking Biden’s $60-billion Ukraine aid package were not impressed. For instance, while Cameron refused to give out any details about his meeting with Trump, we can assume that the latter wasn’t too inclined to help out the same person who, in the past, has described him variously as “stupid”, “wrong” and “misogynistic”. Elsewhere, Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker who is holding back the vote on the Ukraine spending bill, couldn’t even be bothered to find time in his diary for Cameron.

In this respect, Cameron’s fundraising mission was nothing short of a disaster — yet it is one that is indicative of a broader problem within the British political establishment: their inflated sense of self, which in turn is rooted in national delusions about the US-UK “special relationship”. Almost 80 years since Churchill coined the term, the notion that the UK enjoys a privileged “subimperial” position among America’s Western allies continues to inform the country’s self-identity as one of the world’s great powers.

The reality, however, is that for a long time this “special relationship” has existed only in the minds of British elites. As for Americans, they were already likening Britain to a “butterfly content to flutter pathetically on the periphery of the world” in the pages of Time magazine in the Seventies. American officials have continued to pay lip service to the idea of the “special relationship”, but, as a senior Obama advisor later admitted, the US-UK bond “was never really something that was very important to the United States”. He added: “From my perspective it was very important for us to mention the special relationship in every press conference that we had when the UK people were here… but really we laughed about it behind the scenes”.

Similarly, Blinken’s reference to the “infamous special relationship” during a joint press conference with Cameron in December also had a sardonic air to it. And, during Cameron’s latest visit, we can imagine that there were similar scenes of mirth behind closed doors, after the Foreign Secretary spoke in grand Churchillian tones about the UK’s and US’s common responsibility to stand up for freedom and democracy in Ukraine.

Did Cameron really believe that he could wish Washington’s own propaganda into existence? Or was this simply another opportunity for him to steal a headline in what must surely be the final months of his zombified political career? Whatever the case may be, we must assume that Cameron is perfectly aware that the US has been working for some time to “Europeanise” the war — that is, to get Europeans to bear the burden of supporting Ukraine. They’ve also probably made peace, in national security circles, with the increasing likelihood that some kind of negotiated settlement is the only way to end the conflict — even if not before the next elections. In this sense, Trump’s peace plan “to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours”, by having Ukraine surrender the provinces of Donbas and Crimes in return for the war’s conclusion, probably enjoys much greater bipartisan support in the US than most are willing to admit.

After all, viewed in a realist sense, Washington can be said to have taken from this conflict what it wanted, in terms of driving a wedge between Europe (and Germany, in particular) and Russia, preventing the rise of a Eurasian geopolitical reality, and re-establishing America’s economic and military influence over Europe. This reality is going to remain unchanged even if the war should come to an end. Overall, then, Cameron was right to acknowledge that the US’s interests have been served quite well by the proxy war in Ukraine — for them, it really has been “good value for money”. The same, however, cannot be said of the UK — or Europe as a whole, which has suffered a huge economic blowback from the conflict, and is now facing the threat of an all-out war with Russia.

So, why is the UK leading the charge to further escalate the West’s involvement in Ukraine, doubling down on the military victory-at-all-costs narrative? Regardless of whether one takes the latter to mean the forceful return to pre-2022 or pre-2014 borders, there’s ample agreement, even in Western quarters, that either would be impossible to achieve without leading to a direct Nato-Russia war. What needs to give? And how should we explain the flippant way in which British leaders talk of how we have moved “from a post-war world to a pre-war world”?

“Why is the UK leading the charge to further escalate the West’s involvement in Ukraine?”

One factor that arguably plays a role has already been mentioned: the British establishment’s distorted perception of the UK’s power. This goes a long way to explaining Britain’s increasingly aggressive posture against Russia, a country that, in military terms, dwarfs the UK in every possible respect: manpower, tanks, naval assets and aircraft. Moreover, the war in Ukraine has depleted British stocks to the point where Britain has run out of defence equipment to donate to Ukraine, while British-supplied artillery has run out of shells. As Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan admitted in a recent Defence Committee meeting, the UK would not be able to endure a conventional war with Russia for more than a couple of months.

One might argue that, in the eventuality of such a war, the UK would be part of a multinational Nato-led coalition. But other European countries face similar problems. As it is, the West is already unable to keep up with the artillery requirements of a geographically limited conflict such as the one unfolding in Ukraine. According to a recent estimate in the Financial Times, Russia’s annual artillery munition production has risen from 800,000 pre-war to an estimated 2.5 million, or 4 million including refurbished shells. EU and US production capacity, on the other hand, stands at about 700,000 and 400,000 respectively, although they aim to hit 1.4 and 1.2 million by the end of this year. More generally, meanwhile, it’s well understood that Nato’s armies are unprepared — in psychological as well as in military terms — for a long-running, symmetrical conventional war of the kind being fought in Ukraine, having been developed for completely different scenarios. So why are we even flirting with this possibility?

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don’t have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn’t just untethered from reality; it’s also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: “Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on Nato. But, by stoking fear that he would, Nato risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I — a consistent critic of Putin — find this thoroughly provocative and foolish.”

The implicit message shouldn’t be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant — what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it’s easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move — as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.

This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. “How,” he asked, “do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don’t want?” The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

This was the febrile context into which Cameron touched down in Washington this week, stoking further American intervention after which… who knows? In the best-case scenario, Cameron’s vanity trip will at least provide fodder for when he decides to write a second unreadable memoir. And in the worst? It’s all very good for Cameron to say that the war in Ukraine is “good value for money” — but as America’s politicians are starting to realise, the cost of nuclear war most certainly isn’t.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

86 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Will K
Will K
7 months ago

That a war is “good value for money” is likely to be a comment long remembered.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Will K

Remembered for its accuracy.

Will K
Will K
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

Accurate, as in “we don’t have to pay hospital bills for the dead”

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Will K

No, as in “This war damaging Russia (a country that needs to be damaged) without the loss of NATO lives”.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

How classy – let’s sacrifice tens of thousands of Ukrainians for a goal we’re not willing to do ourselves. The cowardice, moral and physical, reeks.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Welcome to real politik.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I agree. We should be actively fighting Russia. However, there doesn’t seem to be the political will for that, so passively fighting Russia is the next best thing.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

I realize we live in a digital world, but I suggest you open up an atlas, or better yet, purchase a large wall map of the world, like I recently did, and take a look at the startling vastness of Russia vs. the minuscule European community. No one will ever “damage” Russia, long term, short of Armageddon.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I am actually very familiar with the “vastness of Russia”, for reasons I won’t bore you with. I’m not saying we should invade and occupy Russia. I’m saying we should sink the rest of its Black Sea Fleet, blow up the Kerch Bridge, and fire enough missiles to leave all Russia’s oil producing infrastructure in flames (let’s see how its economy goes when it can’t pump hydrocarbons). Oh, and if it were up to me, I’d pump a bunch of missiles into the Kremlin too.

D Glover
D Glover
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

Please see my reply to your comment above. If we ‘ pump a bunch of missiles into the Kremlin’ that’s the end of us.

Chris Keating
Chris Keating
7 months ago
Reply to  Will K

Yes, one of the most monstrous phrases ever uttered, perfectly illustrating Cameron’s moral emptiness.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
7 months ago
Reply to  Will K

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Cameron is just a bit dim. To make a public statement like that, which perfectly supports Putin domestic narrative that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war for NATO, is the apogee of crassness.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
7 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

“just a bit”?

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
7 months ago
Reply to  Will K

Indeed. A ‘Day of Infamy’ dedicated to an Old Etonian, failed PM recycled as a shill for the neocon lobby.

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
7 months ago
Reply to  Will K

Like unemployment being, “a price well worth paying.”

William Jackson
William Jackson
7 months ago
Reply to  Alan Hawkes

I became one of the unemployed that paid that price, and I can tell you it was neither worth it for my family or for myself, best description, I quickly became a basket case and lost everything we had worked and saved for.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago

Thanks UnHerd. This crummy piece will be remembered

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
7 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Certainly, Putin doesn’t want all-out war with NATO, but that doesn’t mean he’s no threat. He’s a threat to Ukraine today, but tomorrow it will be Moldova (where he already has 1500 “peacekeeping” troops, or Georgia (20% of which Russia already occupies), or some other ex-member of the Russian Empire that he wants to return to vassal status. Then his army would dwarf even that of today.
If we’re running out of military equipment, then we should sequester all Russian funds in the West (which we still haven’t done) and pay them to Ukraine. Governments are unwilling to do this in case Russia retaliates, but it is disgustingly reprehensible that a permanent member of the Security Council should wage aggressive war on – well, anybody. “Nation shall speak peace unto nation”? Not if we allow this kind of international bullying to continue without deterrence.
Another factor that isn’t talked about much is that Ukraine survived the collapse of the Soviet Union with a load of its nuclear weapons. It was persuaded to give them up on the promise (by Russia, amongst others) that its borders would be respected. Ha, ha! This war has completely shot the nonproliferation policy. If Ukraine had retained those weapons, Russia wouldn’t have dared to invade – that is the lesson that small neighbours of Russia will take from this. They will want their own.
We let him get away with too much at the start. Apparently, murderous attacks on UK residents on UK soil with chemical (novichok) and radiological (polonium) weapons aren’t acts of war any more. They were, and should have been treated as such. (No, not by all-out war, but certainly much more than saying the diplomatic equivalent of “we’re a bit miffed”).
I spent years dealing with psychopaths and other criminals. The thing that encourages them most is a weak response. This encourages them to think they can get away with anything.

John Galt Was Correct
John Galt Was Correct
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

The issue with weapons is supply chains, not just money. Lead times for weapons production are measured in years. The West simply cannot produce the amount of weapons required for Ukraine and to restock itself. Russia is outproducing the West by itself.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago

The West better get their collective skates in then. Even if it is too late to help Ukraine, it might be of help to the next country Putin invades (and there will be a next).

Caro
Caro
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

If we’re running out of military equipment, then we should sequester all Russian funds in the West (which we still haven’t done) and pay them to Ukraine.
Is a ‘man-made’ kleptomania epidemic really in Europe’s interests? Look at growth of BRICS, return of the nonaligned, new financial tools, food and AI weaponisation since ‘sanctions’ increased. Not to speak of the recent pauperisation of the average European expected to pay for new ‘military complex’ and be killed on a battle field. Furthermore, re it is disgustingly reprehensible that a permanent member of the Security Council should wage aggressive war on – well, anybody. “Nation shall speak peace unto nation”? On that premise your country should have resigned long ago. Firstly your PM attacked Iraq and another PM squashed Spring 2022 peace negotiations.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

ah – at last some common sense thanks !!

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

If we’re running out of military equipment, then we should sequester all Russian funds in the West (which we still haven’t done) and pay them to Ukraine. 

On what legal basis? Or can we ignore the law and do whatever we please?

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Carlos Danger

You can when you’re at war.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Superb analysis. Couldn’t agree more.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures?
The answer is because Russia is led by a war-mongering tyrant, who will continue to invade other countries if he gets away with the invasion of Ukraine. “War” (even if it settles down to being another Cold War) is inevitable. Europe should plan accordingly, starting with increased military spending, and not buying Russian hydrocarbons.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

“We” didn’t do anything beyond respond in a rational and reasonable way to irrational and unreasonable behaviour. Putin started the war. It’s Putin who wants and needs the confrontation with the West (it’s his only justification for remaining in power now).
Fazi is the worst writer currently on UnHerd. Against some pretty stiff competition. An AI could do better at spewing out this repetitive drivel. Why is he still here ?

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

The trend (at least in liberal/progressive circles) is that if left unchecked Putin will invade every country in western Europe is very reminiscent of the Viet Nam war domino theory. I am old enough to remember the hawks of that era espousing the theory that if South Viet Nam fell to the North Viet Nam commies,all of SE Asia would be next. Well, South Viet Nam fell and the rest of SE Asia didn’t. I’m not buying that argument a second time.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

There is no parallel between Vietnam and Europe. Nor is this conflict about the spread of Communism. I’m surprised something quite so obvious needs saying. False equivalence.

Caro
Caro
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Mmm. Disparaging superiority or just youth… Sources USA Tonkin incident/Kiev 2014 Maiden: both great power wars by proxy, USSR then USA to-day; policies of spreading communism, democracy by the sword. equally defunct. False? Perfide Albion crushed 2022 Spring peace negotiations-

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

Do you remember a chap called Hitler? Putin is more like him than he is like Ho Chi Minh.

Chris Keating
Chris Keating
7 months ago

Cameron should be locked up. He’s a dangerous lunatic that has destroyed everything that he has touched and now wants to kick off world war III. That he is at the heart of the British Government boggles the mind and won’t end well but is a clear illustration of the collapse of Britain. They are a sick joke but as they present as a drunken psycho armed with a machine gun no-one is laughing.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
7 months ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

Bit of an over-reaction, i say, in a slightly understated British kind of way.

j watson
j watson
7 months ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

No fan of Cameron. But the view he’s expounding nothing new. Pushing strong deterrence and a holding of the line against Totalitarians is why we’ve had the longest period of peace in Europe (Balkan conflict aside, albeit the lesson there is still that it got contained/resolved) in recorded history. And the longest period of peace without direct conflict between major powers. You’ve never been conscripted or fought in a war I would surmise. And History suggests it’s because of strong deterrence and push back, not weakness.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
7 months ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

Cameron is following on from Boris Johnson who first started all this bumptious rhetoric, which achieved nothing other than to put the UK firmly in Russian sights as a target if WW3 did start. The Tories have sweet FA to offer anyone, so they need a war to compensate. After all, Falklands didn’t do Saint Margaret any harm.

Gill Parkinson
Gill Parkinson
7 months ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

Yes well Saint M was competent unlike the idiots we have as leaders now.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

Cameron has his bad points, but at least he gave the British people the referendum that enabled them to get out of the EU.

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

To be fair, that’s true. And subsequently, he was hated by Remainers for offering the referendum (politically, he had no choice), and hated by Brexiteers for having campaigned to remain in the EU.
Beats me why anybody wants to be a politician.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
7 months ago

Cameron’s visit is indicative of a broader problem within both the British political establishment *and* the USA political establishment.

Commentators have for 80 years in a million articles waxed lyrical about the British establishment’s distorted perception of the UK’s power. This is very old news indeed. What is newsworthy is the now very public, very dismissive and very high handed way the USA very frequently treats all of the nations in its Western commercial empire. Those “verys” are the new distinction. Cameron might deserve to be treated with contempt, Macron might demand being ridiculed, and crushing German industry might be good for America, but not all at the same time. A successful empire plays its possessions off *against* each other so they compete for favour.

There is a fine line between keeping your imperial subjects in check but supportive versus sowing hostility and fake loyalty. Washington has for 80 years managed to keep most Western publics and their governments loosely supportive of the American economic project. This was ultimately how Washington won the cold war, and the reverse was why the USSR failed so miserably. Real trust and mutually beneficial cooperation is the key to running an empire. If trust is lost or mutually beneficial cooperation stops your empire can quickly become a very expensive endeavour to keep control over. Vassals don’t need an alternative hegemon to cause problems, the problems come even if they just put in less effort for the current hegemon.

At the moment of the American commercial empire’s greatest weakness, Washington is taking the greatest liberties with the continued engagement of its Western possessions. Is this not another parallel with previous empires in their sunset years?

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
7 months ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Good and interesting comment, thank you.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
7 months ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Good to see you back

j watson
j watson
7 months ago

Author’s like the FSB spokesperson at times. Weakness is provocation in itself. First law of deterrence.
Geopolitically Author rarely gets into what happens, what message is sent, if Putin wins. I guess he’d contend no big deal if Hamas wins/survives and China requires Taiwan too. The World will just be fine etc. Now of course it’s impossible to prove in advance but many think these sort of assumptions dangerous and fundamentally fail to grasp Totalitarians don’t stop there because they can’t. They have to perpetually undermine the West. They simply cannot have vibrant free economies on their doorstep.
Now it is probably the case some 38th parallel equivalent will be required in Ukraine, and that’ll challenge Zelensky too. But he has to be able to negotiate with Putin from a position of security and strength. We have to help with that.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  j watson

I honestly don’t know why this idiot’s still on the UnHerd payroll.
“Will David Cameron cause WW3 ?” !!!
Even Cameron can’t believe he’s that important.
But even Cameron’s less often wrong than Fazi. Just.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

I very much doubt that Fazi wrote the headline. As with newspapers, the headline is “clickbait” to attract readers, written by a “headline writer”. Nowhere in the article does Fazi suggest that Cameron will cause WW3. He does suggest that the West in general, by ramping up the warlike rhetoric, may do so unintentionally. Able Archer caused extreme concern in the Soviet Union precisely because of Reagan’s rhetoric.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
7 months ago
Reply to  j watson

But Putin HAS won; Ukraine has been dismembered and is a total basket case.
And Hamas HAS won; much of the world now regards Israel as a settler nation occupying somebody else’s land.
And, of course, Taiwan IS part of China and has never been anything else.
And much of the world IS totalitarian or at least authoritarian, as the West is becoming. The West is failing and no longer regarded as an example to be followed by many nations.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

Nonsense.
There are no winners in eithe Russia/Ukraine or Israel/Palestine.
Russia has incurred massive costs and losses from its disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Potemkin military exposed for what it really is. Huge military losses. Defence industry (one of Russia’s major exports) crucified as a result (and never coming back). Essentially now becoming a vassal of China. Massive brain drain. Need I go on ?
Taiwan was not a historic part of China. It was a colony at various times of Holland, China and Japan. This is basic history. Do some homework.
Wong on just about every point. So no change there.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

The leading global power cannot be seen to be “not a winner”. If it, or its “satellite” states, does not “win”, it, and they, have lost.
Russia’s economy is doing well; the Russian people have never before had such a high standard of living. Its “Potemkin” military is winning and has learned how to fight this type of war very cheaply, whereas the very expensive Western weapons have performed poorly. It is the West’s military industry which has the problem; the products are too expensive for their performance.
I particularly like your “wong” on just about every point. I think “Wong” is likely to be a winner.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

You’re totally deluded if you think Russian weapons are better than the Western ones. Warning: cognitive dissonance (automatic rejection of unpalatable facts) at work !
You might want to explain why Russia has neither air or naval superiority if their kit and personnel are so fantastic. Or just how and why they’ve lost thousands of tanks and have huge casualties.
You seem to be locked into some bizarre fantasy world in which you believe there’s some sort of US empire with satellite states.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

You might want to explain why the “non-empire” with no enemies in its own hemisphere needs 800 military bases dotted all around the world?

P Branagan
P Branagan
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

I’m desperately trying to decide which contributor to Unherd is the most unhinged and removed from any sense of reality. But I just can’t call it between J Watson and Peter B.

j watson
j watson
7 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Nice to be in the frame PB. Keep following us. It’ll be therapeutic for you and heart-warming for us.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Exactly. Who would buy a Russian tank when it’s main functions seem to be cooking its crew, and lobbing its turret some distance from its hull? As to Taiwan, it is arguable that China is part of Taiwan, rather than the other way round.

j watson
j watson
7 months ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

At least you help demonstrate, much as the Author does, that every generation has it’s equivalent appeasers to those who influenced deterrence Policy in the 1930s until almost too late. That ‘reflex’ was not unique to that time and hence the lesson from History should be a constant reminder.
As regards whether the West as Totalitarian as likes of Russia, China or Iran, I would hazard a guess you continue to live in the West and welcome the chance to give your ill considered opinion on matters and have that freedom respected. Thus I would contend you ought to go to one of the Countries for a period of reflection and recuperation. Then let us know what you think.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
7 months ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

Putin has won what – a badly damaged neighbor? A region of his country that will forever be inflamed when it didn’t have to be? Hamas has won what? – a completely flattened country? No homeland for the Palestinian people? And the story of Taiwan has yet to be played out. All of this with not a scratch on the back of Western powers. Methinks you’ve jumped the gun.

Wyatt W
Wyatt W
7 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Mostly agreed on Russia, but Hamas doesn’t care about Palestinians. They’re radical Islamists who would give anything to destroy Jews. If their deaths lead to a wider war between Israel and Iran I think they’d consider it a win.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Exactly. Even if Israel withdrew from Gaza tomorrow, the Palestinians would be in dire straits for eons (assuming they don’t learn to subsist on a diet of rubble).

Liam F
Liam F
7 months ago
Reply to  j watson

yeah agree. I don’t have much time for Cameron either but he doesn’t wang on about “special relationship “. In fact no one does except the BBC and incorrigible old lefties and T Fazi. It’s most odd. I wonder why they still keep doing it ?

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  j watson

We can help by fast-tracking whatever is left of Ukraine into NATO.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
7 months ago

Deterrence is good value for money, but not war.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
7 months ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

An in the same vein appeasement is bad value for money in the long term.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

It is if somebody else is fighting it for you.

Claire M
Claire M
7 months ago

Excellent article. I squirm when I see British politicians posturing and grandstanding against a backdrop of increasingly apparent governmental dysfunction and ineptitude. As Thomas Fazi indicates though, our comportment (like Macron’s) is not just laughable, it is dangerous. The appalling war mongering of the U.S. and its puppet cheerleaders in Europe, the endless provocation and s_ _ _ stirring, have brought us to the brink of disaster. All of this – as Professor Mearsheimer has said – was completely avoidable. What happened to diplomacy? How many more must die to sate the egos of delusional imperialists?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
7 months ago
Reply to  Claire M

A nation needs statesmen to engage in diplomacy. There are no more statesmen around, only ingratiated, bloated weasels.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
7 months ago
Reply to  Claire M

The fact the author is correct about British politicians belief in the Special Relationship doesn’t negate the fact that a Russian overthrow of Ukrainian would be profoundly bad.
Europe needs to stand up to Russia in this instance, we can’t continue to rely on dear old Uncle Sam fighting our wars for us. It’s Europe not the USA that’s primarily under threat in this instance.
Cameron is just a hollow drum representing a hollow government in its final death throws.

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

“Europe needs to stand up to Russia in this instance, we can’t continue to rely on dear old Uncle Sam fighting our wars for us.”

Stand up to them with the invincible might of our troops, perhaps? All twelve of them?

The “Special Relationship” had a brief swansong with Reagan and Thatcher, but it’s a bad joke now, and we Britons must reconcile ourselves to some hard truths. The Americans consider European states to be pathetic minnows, and Britain perhaps the most pathetic of the bunch. Very well. Let’s at least be smart minnows and attend to our own domestic affairs.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Damon Hager

Britain’s military might be atrophied, but it still has the Bomb (with a capital “B”).

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

And our permanent seat on the Security Council makes us a useful diplomatic ally, now and again. But I sense contempt from US administrations, and Democrats in particular. And that’s partly understandable. They have more important things to do than massage our collective ego.
PM Gordon Brown once insisted, rather foolishly, on a face-to-face meeting with Obama. The latter gave him a couple of minutes in a hotel basement or kitchen, if I remember correctly. British delusions notwithstanding, that’s a grotesque, deliberate snub, and it should have been answered.
Personally, I think the UK’s future should lie in a much closer relationship with powers of similar standing, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

D Glover
D Glover
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

Which we could never use against Russia. We’re a small, densely populated country that imports nearly half its food and a lot of energy. We couldn’t survive one H-bomb, let alone the fury of Vladimir.

Fabio Paolo Barbieri
Fabio Paolo Barbieri
7 months ago

This is quite literally the stupidest article I have ever read on UnHeard. Repeat its thesis in Poland or Estonia, see what they teil you.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago

Absolutely true. Nobody in those countries is under any illusions as to the sort of character Putin is.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
7 months ago

“How,” he asked, “do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don’t want?”
The general has hit the nail on the head. How do we avoid WW1 syndrome…..or is it already too late?
Excellent analysis by Fazi of the hubris, complacency and incompetence which characterises the Western political class.

John Tyler
John Tyler
7 months ago

Cameron and America aside, he’s well on the way to a major war through his churlish appeasement of Islamic Imperialism, and let’s drop the pretence that no Islamic nations have nuclear capability.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
7 months ago

He said that if Russia isn’t defeated in Ukraine it will feel emboldened to invade other countries
Putin has been around for more than two decades. If he was a serial invader, there would be ample evidence of that by now.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

And there is ample evidence

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago

Mistake by Unherd, I think

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
7 months ago

The UK is just the hired help of the USA – useful to provide a bit of muscle when the USA wants to go to war such as in Iraq, but quickly discarded once its usefulness is over. The UK is no longer a major power and it’s about time our politicians accepted it.

Stewart Cazier
Stewart Cazier
7 months ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

The UK doesn’t even provide a bit of muscle, its role is political, not military – to help pretend that an alliance of nations are involved.

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago
Reply to  Stewart Cazier

On the one hand, “Ouch”.
On the other hand, yes, you’re perfectly correct.
But at least our friendly, fading hegemon always treats us with consummate respect.
“Yo, Blair!”

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Damon Hager

At least Britain is on the side of the “Good Guys”.

Stewart Cazier
Stewart Cazier
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin M

I think that depends on whether you live somewhere which has resources which the “Good Guys” want or not.

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago
Reply to  Stewart Cazier

True. In fairness, Australia generally puts its hand up for that role as well.

Francisco Menezes
Francisco Menezes
7 months ago

Cameron is like Bette Davis as Baby Jane still thinking she is Daddy’s little girl. After the 1922 Naval Conference in Washington DC Britain and France became second tier powers. They needed a Suez-crisis to be rubbed with their noses in reality.

Damon Hager
Damon Hager
7 months ago

And US behaviour during the Suez Crisis showed just how important we were to them even then, i.e., not very. A “smell the coffee” moment in more ways than one.
Looking to the future, however, small countries like Ireland, Norway and Denmark show that geopolitical irrelevance is no bar to prosperity. We can learn from these countries, whose level of international influence is about the same as ours.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
7 months ago

As PM, Cameron’s foreign policy was a disaster. Getting rid of Ghaddafi and unleashing the flow of immigrants to Europe. Wanting to get involved in Syria’s civil war (and held back only by public opinion). Considering China to be a benign power. What did Sunak see in this resume that convinced him that Cameron was the man to be Foreign Secretary?

Martin M
Martin M
7 months ago

His gravitas?

John Riordan
John Riordan
7 months ago

The special relationship does exist, it’s just not what is implied by anyone who thinks it’s a form of friendship and loyalty that exists between states as opposed to individuals.

Lord Palmerston’s observation “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow” is relevant here. The USA is the closest thing the UK has to a friend simply because the strategic interests of the UK and USA tend to coincide more often than they do for the UK’s other state-level relationships.

That said, it is of course good for British political figures to be seen jumping into helicopters on the White House lawn and all that stuff, but that’s just the theatre that surrounds politics.