Having earned MAGA’s respect for Brexit, Britain was in prime position to exploit the shift in global order heralded by Trump 2.0. After all, Brexit Britain broke with globalism long before JD Vance came to bury it at Munich. The Labour government’s new doctrine of “progressive realism” was intended to anticipate such a world, combining a clear-sighted pragmatism with attachment to liberal values. But so far, Britain’s politicians have decided to blunder on, spurning the opportunity for greater independence.
The talk in the UK is now of rearmament and conscription, as Kyiv’s future is contested from afar. Britain is being drawn into plans for a post-American Europe, with suggestions floated of an Anglo-French “reassurance force” to oversee any armistice line in Ukraine. There are whispers, too, that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves will impose austerity and tax rises in order to boost the country’s defence spending. The British public is largely supportive, for now, of sending troops to prop up the Ukrainian war effort, with 58% agreeing with the need for sending peacekeeping forces when polled last month. But such attitudes are invariably challenged when the reality of the measure — and the state of our depleted army — comes into focus.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, support for Ukraine has been a bipartisan affair in Britain. Boris Johnson, the former Tory prime minister who oversaw the withdrawal from the EU, abandoned a party meeting to visit Kyiv in July 2022. Starmer, a fierce opponent of Brexit, has been no less vociferous in his backing of Kyiv. With enduring folk memories of the Cold War fed by a steady stream of villainous Russian gangsters on television, a surge of popular support for Ukraine helped to plaster over the single greatest fault line in modern British politics: Brexit.
As both sides of the Brexit divide were able to meet in the middle, neither had to confront the real question for policy: what was Britain’s national interest in the conflict? What interest was served by supporting Ukraine? If nothing else, Brexit thrust questions of Britain’s future and priorities to the forefront of our political life. Yet neither side was able to give a convincing national answer to why Britain should support Ukraine. As this question remained unresolved, Britain is now contemplating sending troops it can hardly spare from its severely under-equipped army to man frozen ditches in the Donbas and patrol the Black Sea.
To this day, Britain’s liberals have continued to use the Ukraine war as a way of aggressively rolling back Brexit. By claiming that Trump is appeasing the Russian dictator in seeking a negotiated end to the war, the very same people who sought to overturn the single largest democratic vote in British history are now posing as champions of democracy. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey yesterday harried Nigel Farage for “explain[ing] away” Trump’s dismissal of Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator”, after the Reform leader said the remarks should “not be taken literally”. Labour Parliamentarians have also joined the online fray, their attempts to dragoon populist voters into a new cold war demonstrating that their foreign policy is not really about Russia or Ukraine, but rather about suppressing dissent in Britain itself.
Farage’s own base is more likely than Tory- or Labour-voting counterparts to favour a reduction in support for Kyiv. A third of Reform voters think Britain should cut its assistance to Ukraine’s war effort if Trump winds down US contributions, compared to 19% of Conservatives and 15% of Labour voters. Party MP Rupert Lowe yesterday chimed with his leader in suggesting that Zelensky is not, in fact, a dictator, but added that “Trump’s right. The war cannot go on forever. We need a long-term settlement tolerable to all involved.” Reform Deputy Leader Richard Tice, for his part, encouraged European nations to “step up” their defence spending.
A dilemma thus presents itself to Reform: to maintain ties with Trump and demonstrate a tangible difference from the “uniparty” position on Ukraine is also to risk going against what remains a popular view among the British public. While voters’ openness to a negotiated peace has risen as Kyiv’s campaign has faltered, a plurality still want aid to be provided until Ukrainian victory can be achieved following a withdrawal by Putin.
It’s worth remembering that the Russian threat to Europe — let alone Britain — is essentially negligible. Assuming the negotiations to end the war proceed, Russia has won at best a Pyrrhic victory in Ukraine. Conservative estimates of Russian casualties run to many tens of thousands of dead young men, in a country that was already teetering on the edge of demographic collapse before the conflict. Putin’s initial war aim of installing a friendly regime in Kyiv was already abandoned in 2022, when Ukrainian militias successfully fended off an elite Russian special forces assault on the Antonov Airport at Hostomel outside Kyiv.
Putin’s forces have very clearly struggled to occupy the Russian-speaking part of Ukraine; the notion that they will now overrun Europe is scarcely believable. Only in the fantasies of retired British colonels writing for The Telegraph, vicariously dreaming of Leopard tanks sweeping across the steppe to the gates of Moscow, could one picture a negotiated end to this war as some great victory for Russia. What’s worse, in portraying a negotiated end to a bloody three-year war as capitulation to the Kremlin, Britain’s laptop bombardiers are doing Putin’s work for him, allowing him to portray a bungled and costly war as a great and gruelling victory for the Russian people.
And while a defence spending hike will doubtless be better for British industry than pursuing Net Zero, it is worth recalling that defence involves more than churning out armour and shells: you also need the people to fight — and potentially die — with those weapons. And who will fight once the war ends in Ukraine? As recent polling shows, Generation Z — prime military-age voters — has no wish to fight for Britain. Given that national identity and patriotism have been actively disdained for decades as politically toxic to the cause of globalised Britain, and with ethnic polarisation from mass migration growing, it should hardly come as a surprise that this country’s multiethnic, multicultural youth have little desire to take up arms.
British and European politicians have taken Vance’s Munich address as the signal to rearm. Yet in all the hue and cry of being forced to take responsibility for their own security, these very same politicians missed the crucial element of his speech — that national strength lies not in restarting the assembly lines in weapons factories, but instead in democratic renewal.
Philip Cunliffe is Associate Professor of International Relations at the Institute of Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London. He is author or editor of eight books, as well as a co-author of Taking Control: Sovereignty and Democracy After Brexit (2023). He is one of the hosts of the Bungacast podcast.
thephilippics 
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“Labour Parliamentarians have also joined the online fray, their attempts to dragoon populist voters into a new cold war demonstrating that their foreign policy is not really about Russia or Ukraine, but rather about suppressing dissent in Britain itself.”
Wow! That’s quite a claim. I would want to see a _lot_ more evidence to support it, beyond Farage (rightly) being hauled over the coals. After all, Farage did say last year that the war was Ukraine’s fault (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo). On that, he and Trump agree. Not many honest people do though.
Feb 23rd is nigh.
We need a bigger stick.
We need a negotiated peace In Ukraine.
What we don’t need Is sabre rattling “taking the war to Russia” posturing.
Conscription is not a deal that can be done with British citizens. As Cunliffe says who would fight for this version of an anywhere country nominally called Britain. Bridget Philipson’s education plans could not be more poorly timed should the defence of the realm require a pride in and love of nation.
I am never quite sure whether to laugh or cry these days when reflecting on Labour’s analytical thinking skills.
Nobody is talling about taking the war to Russia, or conscription. What is being talked about is bringing defence spending up to the level needed for Europe to deter further aggression.
But surely the questing is spending on what?
Europe is reverting to what it’s always been, a collection of petty states unable to get along with one another without Uncle Sam to crack the whip.
‘Always been’? The States of Europe were around long before the Yanks started destroying the Native Americans.
First, Europeans had been destroying the “Native Americans” for 250 years before any Yanks did. That’s just stupid.
Second, yes “always been.” At war with one another for 1000 years until 1945.
..and afterwards! Don’t forget the Yugoslav states at each others’ threats.. they are in Europe too! as are the former USSR states doing the same to each other!
Eh, same people! Duh!
” Labour’s analytical thinking skills”
That’s an oxymoron if ever I saw one!
I’m guessing you don’t have a job in government.
Indeed. A brief glimpse at reality might shock them into realism?
Crying at the moment….
I just cry
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey yesterday harried Nigel Farage for “explain[ing] away” Trump’s dismissal of Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator”, after the Reform leader said the remarks should “not be taken literally”.
It struck me last night how strange it is how all the people who are constantly crying about Trump having a very touch-and-go relationship with the truth are now taking him at his word.
It’s worth remembering that the Russian threat to Europe — let alone Britain — is essentially negligible.
Is it? Sitting in central Europe, I am a little more nervous about this. On the one hand I really don’t think Putin is going to try anything else soon; the war in the Ukraine has been a misadventure. But whether he does come back for more depends on the terms of the peace deal and the deterrents baked into it.
In particular, Putin’s openness to Ukraine’s EU accession is ominous: it’s basically him telling Europeans that EU membership is not a threat to him. Therefore, it wouldn’t stop him from going back into Ukraine if he really felt like it. Perhaps a front to big himself up for peace negotiations but definitely a signal not to mess about with and underestimate Russia.
You should be! The Austrians along with the Germans, Poles, Czechs, Italians etc should have armies capable of deterring (and if necessary defeating) Russian incursions.
Austria spent 0.88% of GDP on defence in 2023, up from 0.77% in 2022!
We might beat up on ourselves in Britain but we spent $74,942,000 on defence in 2023. Austria spent $4,400,000.
There are only 9 million Austrians and they no longer have a Navy, and rearming might be a problem given her past.
Also, like Ireland, Austria is neutral and so we have no discernsble enemies.. it’d be like investing in tinfoil hats to ptotect us from Aliens!
What is the Irish attitude to its neutrality? Austrians’ attitude is quite odd: only about 30% of people believe it would deter an attack or help in any way in the event of an attack. But, as became clear after the Ukraine war began and Sweden and Finland swiftly dumped their own neutrality, Austrians have no urge at all to rethink.
Reasons for avoidance: neutrality is a key module of identity in the 2nd republic, we don’t want to send our kids to war (fair enough), we are surrounded by NATO members so they’d help us if there was an attack (casual freeloading as a national sport)…
Neutrality was also a condition of the peace treaty Figl signed with Molotov in 1955. So only 30% believe neutrality would deter an attack: the corollary to that is that NATO membership would likely guarantee an attack, presuming one thinks Russia actually has the military capability to do so. Personally, I doubt it. It’s interesting isn’t it, that at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, experts were denigrating every branch of Russia’s military, from its equipment, to its command structures, to its intelligence. But after over two years of draining its military resources, Russia is now this military juggernaut poised to overrun Europe.
Ireland isn’t neutral, it is protected by Britain’s armed forces, so it takes whatever defence posture Britain takes by default.
Can’t blame a landlocked country for not having a Navy.
I think he referred to Habsburg Empire when they had Adriatic cost, so they had Navy.
Your numbers are mince. Multiply by 1000 would be closer.
Sorry, my mistake – yes you are right x1000
GB spent £84.9 trn on defense you say?
Bn, not trn. 74.9, not 84.9. And $, not £. But otherwise, you’re pretty much spot on!
Irish maths?
We spend billions on a Trident system that is unreliable – a joke that your rocket will not deliver your nuclear warhead in the right direction. And on two useless aircraft carriers – big expensive floating boxes (that is when they actually work) inviting attacks by cheap drones. Our expenditure is wrongly directed; and the army is now smaller than at any time since WW2.
There is a compelling case for some kind of national service, since we need a defence force. Dad´s Army could lead the way.
My point is that we need nukes and a navy not a big army. They need to work, sure but all military technology has issues – the Americans have these sort of problems with their tech all the time. It is part of the process of development. Likewise technologies adapt to new threats – as I was saying above RWDEWs seem to be a good solution to drone strikes on ships – low cost and effective.
I am actually a fan of national service for home defence. I think it would be better for 18 year olds than sending them to second-rate universities to study useless humanities degrees. They could get a trade, get fit, learn some discipline etc.
You only need a defence force if some army is attacking you or likely to in the foreseeable future.. Now if you’re angling for an attack force, that’s a different matter.. As Muslims in deserts or built up urban areas (like Gaza and the West Bank) seem to be the main target you’ll spyplanes, incendiary and white phosphorus bombs and sand-proof drones, won’t you?
Good point. This is the first thing the UK should do dump the Trident system and the two aircraft carriers – sell them to China.
Declare ourselves a neutral country, give up our chair on the UN and sell all our overseas basis. Politicians should concentrate on making this place a good place to live and not try to be a global policeman.
Soon enough there will not be a place in Britain that is not reached by the sound of the muezzin calling people to prayer. Five times a day.
The army hasn’t been this small since Waterloo.
If aircraft carriers are so useless why is China building so many of them?
Problem with UK aircraft carriers is lack of sufficient escort capacity, so they are vulnerable.
I think general Richards said in Times interview that Britain only has 12 frigates and destroyers available.
There has been no incursion in the 25 years that Putin has been in office. At what point can one consider that there will not be any?
If the Russians manage to go 100 years without invading anyone, they are welcome to submit their application for readmission to the human race.
I’m not surprised Putin might back closer EU-Ukraine ties as it could create more chaos and division within Ukraine. One excellent commentator I follow noted that Putin’s current goals in Ukraine are not territorial, but actually to fundamentally undermine and destabilise it politically. If that happens, Putin can start intefering all over again against a weaker Ukraine.
Those are the proven objectives of US/UK and Israeli black ops.. Russia is an amateur in that field.. China’s BnR approach is business based.. you’re projecting I’m afraid!
I am surprised by all the commenters claiming that Putin is somehow in favour of Ukraine EU membership.
If one recalls, Putin forced Yanukovych to renage on Ukraine EU partnership agreement.
Putin definitely does not want successful Ukraine on Russias border.
Whether Ukraine will be successful and meet criteria of EU membership any time soon is another matter.
Why in God’s name might the EU be a threat to Russia? I thought your (silly) point was that Russua ua an imminent threat to the EU? Make up your mind, or are you just a warmongering, armchair warrior wanting everyone to be a threat to everyone else?
Don’t deride things as silly until you know what’s behind them. I say this in all seriousness because many people where I am truly believe that EU membership is a protective factor. When I visited my Slovakian friend in Bratislava just after the Ukraine war started, she was quite shaken up and the first thing she said to me was: “Thank God for the EU. And NATO.”
In that order. Maybe the Irish think differently but the EU has a properly saviour-like quality to a lot of people and so Putin’s openness to Ukraine’s accession hits all those people where it hurts and forces them to question their core beliefs. It is psychologically destabilising.
The EU as a “saviour”? Bwahahaha!!!
But there is NO EU army! I see you sneaked in Nato as if it is the EU’s army.. it is not! Hence, Russia has no objection to Ukraine joining the EU but under no circumstances will ot be allowed to join Nato.. Huge difference!
That my be view of your friend.
Fact is though that Slovakian people chose Fico party in last year general elections.
He is very pro Russia as are many people I spoke in Slovakia skiing region.
You ought to see his collection of board games about war. Fills a closet.
Is it? Let’s see: in nearly a quarter century of being in power, Putin has attacked exactly zero countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Ukraine stemmed from the nonsensical push in the West to plant NATO on Russia’s borders despite years of protesting from Moscow that such a move would be untenable. Or as the kids say, FAFO. It was a pointless exercise that led to a needless conflict and tremendous loss of life.
Also, a good case can be made that Zelensky IS a dictator: elections were canceled, opposition parties ruled illegal, media that dared criticize shut down, and priests were put in jail. Ironically, these are the types of actions that Zelensky’s water carriers in the US keep insisting Trump will take.
: /
100% Correct.. but as you see, a majority are still in denial! No wonder the EU, especially Germany, and also GB, are all in dire straits economically as well as morally, culturally and every other way as well!
Utter nonsense.
Former Russian slaves jump at the chance of joining NATO.
It was based on centuries long experience of Russia genocidal imperialism.
If Russia is such peaceful neighbour why did Finland and Sweden join NATO?
What not being member of NATO looks like was shown in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine now.
The 2021 Integrated Review is still correct in its recommendations- build up the navy, increase nuclear stockpile, invest in R&D and intelligence: reduce size of army and focus on special forces. Our armed forces are not designed to fight the Russians in Europe. The Poles, the Germans, the French and the Scandis need to do that and build their land forces accordingly.
We should spend more on defence- I like the author’s suggestion of swapping net zero spend for military investment- but largely our priorities are right and shouldn’t change due to the Ukraine situation.
Very contestable as predates the Invasion.
Fleets of low tech drones ought to be much more prevalent in the review and a whole set of tactical lessons from the Ukrainian conflict weren’t appreciated in 2021. As ex Navy that would include the lessons the Russians painfully learnt and now bottled up in port.
I agree. Interestingly, the 2021 IR allocated funds to “directed energy weapons” which are thought to be an effective response to drone swarms. Britain is currently one of the world leaders in this technology and I believe have been testing it in Ukraine against Russian weaponry.
And the RAF. I agree a large standing army in Ukraine would need a large Navy and Air Force to support it and on top of that we would need to defend our Home waters and our islands, I cannot see how we’d be able to afford that.
We need a detente with Russia and as strong a Navy and Air Force as possible with a small efficient Army to deter.
A detente with the Russians? So they can breach it whenever it suits them? A detente is something you have with people who are honest and trustworthy. That doesn’t include Russians.
There is sense in that, but there is much to be learned from the Ukraine War. People often say “The youth of today are too soft to fight a war”, but I bet some of them would be good at getting a drone to drop a bomb in a Russian soldier’s lap.
Navies are pointless as ships are so easy to sink.
Pretty hard to get anywhere without them though.
Yes and that is why China is building multiple aircraft carriers?
Can someone explain how a country that pursues net zero so furiously can do the job of rearming?!
What are going to do, make the weapons, drones, tanks etc out of compressed flowers?!
We could go to the Chinese and buy their weapons they’re probably cheap enough for us to be able to afford them.
We have no industrial base, no secure energy supply, a multicultural society where the fighting age people have no desire to fight anyway. And those that do will be vetted by a DEI programme which means the ethnic/gender makeup will be the highest priority and not combat effectiveness.
This is some way beyond stupid now.
Drones are cheap.
And here’s a thought – you don’t need to be able to lump a 40kg pack 40miles over the Welsh hills to bring down devastating tactical range destruction. You might even be black, lesbian and with a disability, but smart, clever and skilled with the technology.
Every master tactician through history has claimed (and prayed for) war without boots on the ground. It’s not gonna happen. Not now. Not ever.
You are right, Dylan. Yes, DEI-vetted cyber warriors are probably fine to control drones and fend off enemy hackers, but as both sides demonstrated in Ukraine, you also need plenty of reasonably fit 20-45 year olds willing to fight on the front line, and take ground.
Otherwise those cyber warriors are going to get some unfriendly visitors knocking on the door to their bunker.
Nukes? They don’t need a lot of boots.
The one that eventually destroys Israel will in all probability be delivered’ by mule, or at best a Toyota truck.
Well, hopefully it will take out the Palestinians at the same time.
Drones are only individually cheap if you have the industrial infrastructure to mass produce 1000s per year. And the complete infrastructure to do that costs tens of billions of dollars and needs to be doing more than just making drone parts.
Since about 95% of the UK no longer bothers itself with manufacturing, most people are utterly ignorant of just how little relevant industrial capability the UK has left. (A large chunk left is actually food production.) Thanks to the Net Zero destruction of the European chemical industry, we no longer even have the basic chemical supply chains to produce 100% native basic printed circuit boards. The only advanced players left are now China, South Korea, Japan, and the USA.
As a result, a British or European drone built using secure European industrial supply chains costs 20 times one built in China. The UK and Europe will take decades to recover from the industrial and technology destruction, and we lack the focus needed for such a grand national effort.
Europe has followed in the footsteps the Ottoman Empire. Insular, backwards, complacent, and increasingly poor too.
I have heard a rumour that RAF drone operators are now awarded ‘pilot’s wings’ despite never having actually left the ground!
Can this really be true?
Yes, yes, but will they have yhe balls for it? That’s the question!
Dumb as rocks.
I love the idea of compressed flowers
Me too!
Why stop there. We could attack them with fresh fruit, Monty Python style.
Oh no, we’ve @£$%ed off the farmers too, so no fruit will be grown. Another potential ammunition stream has gone.
They defeated the American army in Vietnam when hippies at home inserted them unto the rifle barrels of state troopers in protest! Flowers are powerful!!
Yep, it’s positively Victorian! The world has changed!
I think you are too pessimistic.
Why can not uk have ev tanks?
Surely Ed Milibrain can provide recharging stations in Ukraine?
Even under enemy fire.
I would not argue against rearming.
But then uk would have to be nice to CCP.
Because uk has no manufacturing capability left.
But all is marvellous, captain Darling.
Weakness is provocation in itself. Deterrence needs to be meaningful. Author seems to completely miss this. He also misses we are now debating how we’d secure a peace that Putin wouldn’t just ignore after a brief pause. Ukraine knows it’ll have to compromise. The issue is what guarantees then put in place Putin won’t try again. He’s implying therefore he’s happy for Putin to take the whole of Ukraine and not our problem.
Putting aside how that’d impact on how Western democracies would then be perceived round the World he misses the strategic importance of Ukraine and how vulnerable the geography makes some of the eastern European Nations. Russia couldn’t invade them now, but allow it a nice pause, the semblance of victory and back into the world economic and financial system and that rapidly changes. Just go and look at a map for goodness sake and pretend you are Latvian etc for a few minutes.
The attempt to drag Brexit into this, that really Brexiteers should favour casting Ukraine aside, is desperate rubbish to gain a constituency. The architect of Brexit, Bojo, displaying his better instincts, of completely opposite view. And if there was anything positive in Brexit it was that folks felt British values at stake. This Author misses that completely and would damage our moral standing for decades. What on earth do we stand for. Realpolitik does come into it, even Winnie knew that when he hated conceding chunks of eastern Europe to Stalin. But now we have a choice and agency.
Putin already been consistently contemptuous of national sovereignty – Novichok sprayed around a quite town, cyber attacks and attempts to disrupt underwater cable comms. And that’s before one gets into what the FBS does via fake news.
Old Adolf was a good guy, only pressing legit claims and much maligned some were saying even up to mid 1940.
Which side you on? Sometimes it’s messy but you have to choose.
Bravo JW !
I rarely agree with you but this outline of realities is fantastic.
If the Reassurance Force needs the reassurance of American reassurance, it provides no reassurance, even to itself.
Peace is breaking out. In those addicted to endless war this creates withdrawal symptoms.
Like substitute medication is provided to substance abusers and safe spaces allotted for them to continue their habit in safety, so conscription and defence spending provide the martial substitute and safe space for the endless-war-addicted to practice their habit until cleaned up.
In the 1930s, the Spitfire and Britain’s radar net were created by defence spending. Neither deterred aggression. The finances did not exist to create a large army to deploy on the continent as in the Great War.
The reduction of Britain’s armed forces over recent decades has not encouraged military aggression towards the UK.
Moreover, as the Kremlin now finds Ukrainian membership of the EU acceptable, this is a tacit acceptance that, as Ukraine must remain a sovereign state to join the Union, the existence of the country as a sovereign state is no longer considered an affront to Russia.
As the author observes, the Russian invasion has been an enterprise bungled from the start, not least by the Kremlin’s assumption that the Ukrainians would not fight. It has made Ukraine more Ukrainian, not less. In Russia, inflation and huge casualties matter even to autocrats.
Furthermore, the UK will have to provide trillions in reparations to the Commonwealth for transatlantic slavery. One moral crusade at a time.
It’s unnecessary to spend much time on the transparent purposes of Starmer’s and Macron’s ‘plan’ for a Reassurance Force. Cementing the eastward expansion of NATO, and attempting to retain full US military participation, even at the risk of compelling Washington into a war with Russia if the Force ever came into combat with the Russians.
There are enormous prayers that Heaven in anger grants.
As for the nature of the support for conscription and defence spending among the British public, there are those who habitually mistake military enterprise for conservative patriotism.
In Russia, inflation and huge casualties matter even to autocrats. True, but every Russian soldier that dies in Ukraine won’t be available to serve in Putin’s Army when he launches his next invasion.
Russian losses can be a net gain for autocrats if they get the right sorts into the army.
And I’m pretty sure Putin is good at it.
Russia is the enemy of Britain (and the West generally) now, and it will still be so in 100 years time. “Doing a deal” with Russians has the problem that the Russians are simply not a people that can be trusted. Britain (and Europe) must rearm on the basis that a war with Russia will come. If it doesn’t come, it will only be because Russia sees strength, not weakness, in the West. If Russia is “teetering on the edge of democratic collapse”, as the author says, let’s give it a big shove to the ground. Once it is there, we should put our boot on its throat, press hard, and not ease the pressure for a century at least. Any other course of action would be foolish.
Is Russia the enemy? How many stabbings has Russia committed on our streets? How many Russian grooming gangs are there?
Yes, Russia is the enemy. Always was. Always will be. As to Russian crimes in Britain, I do recall some Novichok poisonings not that long ago.
I wonder whether a war economy wouldn’t save Britain, as the Labour government doesn’t seem able to save the country from bankruptcy. The government no longer has the fiscal levers to apply, but could plan for mass munitions manufacturing and conscription against Russia. However, the downside may be civil unrest and eventually a nuclear attack on British territories.
@UKLabour wanting to send us to war again !
The UK should not get involved in any attempt to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.
We have public debt of £2.6 trillion with over £1 billion interest payments per annum.
We have zero growth, high taxes and inflation rising.
Get real!
Sounds like a “war economy” would be of some help then.
People get killed, young men mostly, a very bad idea.
Yeah, but the Russians are perpetually up for them, and someone needs to oppose them.
When Britain reaches net zero the surplus energy normally devoted to the general welfare will be consumed trying to keep warm on the meagre rations allowed citizens.
If interest on 2600 billions of debt was only 1 billion per year we should borrow even more.
It must be much higher than that.
I suppose Cunliffe has linked this question to Brexit because he knows quite a lot about Brexit and British public opinion, and very little about Russia and Ukraine, something which is abundantly clear from this article.
This is untrue. Like so many political scientists Cunliffe is reasoning in rationalist terms, but if Putin and the other creeps around him – Patrushev, Naryshkin – were rationalists they would never have launched this war in the first place. It is an ideological conflict, motivated by a warped understanding of history and a pathological desire to see Russian ‘greatness’ restored and above all recognised by what Putin considers its only peer competitors, China and the United States. Xi has played on that to his own advantage, leveraging Moscow’s need to create an ever greater economic dependence on China, something which makes the more rational parts of Russia’s security structure very nervous. Trump is in the process of giving Putin all the recognition he craves and demanding nothing in return.
It has not been abandoned, merely postponed for a more favourable occasion. There are particular historical reasons for the Putinist obsession with Ukraine – the genocidal belief that Ukrainians ‘don’t exist’ and are merely Russians seduced by the siren call of the West. However restoring Russian ‘greatness’ does not end there – it means restoring its ascendancy over all of Eastern Europe, probably starting with Moldova, which is hugely vulnerable as it is outside both the EU and NATO. Give the Russians a few years to lick their wounds and with Chinese technological and economic support they will renew their aggressive plans – this isn’t a guess, we know that this is what they are planning. Something Cunliffe perhaps does understand is that probably the longest-standing British foreign policy goal has been to prevent any single hostile power from dominating Europe, something which could happen even without an overt Russian invasion if it is allowed to re-arm while we remain passive..
Putin will portray it in this way domestically anyway, and nothing written in the Anglosphere has the slightest effect on Russian public opinion. I don’t disagree that a negotiated end to the war is necessary, and that sadly Ukraine will lose territory – not because Putin has somehow ‘earned it’, as Trump implies, but because in the Donbass and Crimea most of those who wanted to remain under Ukrainian rule fled long ago, and re-establishing Ukrainian rule there over a population which has been thoroughly brainwashed by Russian propaganda would be extraordinarily difficult. What would be objectionable is the refusal to give the remaining part of Ukraine real security guarantees with teeth, and given the American stance it is clear that Europe will have to provide the force to make these credible. This doesn’t mean ‘Leopard Tanks sweeping over the steppes to Moscow’, or even open conflict. It means a much bigger stick to provide deterrence.
Great post.
However, how would that new security framework look like short of Ukraine membership of NATO?
We had Budapest memorandum.
It did not work.
If you told me that an invading force would:
1). Take over the media and publish hate article after hate article about natives
2). Hoist an alien flag over our civic buildings symbolising views the vast majority disagree with
3). Destroy our military , destroy our manufacturing industries and destroy our energy independence
4). Tax the living daylights out of us and send our money abroad
5) Orchestrate a full on invasion where people with wholly alien cultural values and traditions came in their millions to become the majority of the population in many of our ancient proud cities
I would sadly tell you that it’s already happened, all of it. Conquered from within.
Indeed, Consummatum est.
..that’s progress for you.. out with the Victorian and in with the new! ..and all yhr better for it, in my opinion.
The Ukraine debacle is a rough analog of the Spanish Civil War, in terms of testing new tactics and strategies. Unlike that tragic war, perhaps we will also pearn better war prevention techniques.
I’m getting a little confused with this peace plan.
I though the idea was to have a peacekeeping force in some sort of DMZ on wherever the agreed Ukraine-Russia border ends up. This makes some sense.
But … how can that possibly include troops from countries (like the UK) which actively supported and trained Ukraine ? There’s a fundamental contradiction there. Why does no one in the UK ever notice this ?
The Russians almost certainly won’t accept UK or French troops on the border. And nor should we send any since they cannot do peacekeeping in that context. Non-participant/ally nation troops only.
Yes, we should now work to get a stable, long term settlement in Ukraine which both sides can live with. And not punish Ukraine for defending itself. And make sure Ukraine can defend itself.
Problem is that we had agreement about Ukraine in Budapest memorandum where USA, UK, France and Russia guaranteed Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity.
Russia broke that agreement and other signatories did little to enforce it.
So any new agreement short of Ukraine membership of NATO will suffer from the same problem of Russia invading again when it rearms.
I am not saying that Ukraine NATO membership will happen, just saying that I have not seen any other possible framework being proposed which does not allow Russia to invade again.
Putin and Lavrov have repeatedly made it clear that any western military involvement in Ukraine is as impossible as Ukraine joining NATO. So, as often, the debate here is otiose.
I note the writer studiously avoided any mention of NATO’s eastward encroachment, and Kyev’s attack on its own (Russian speaking) citizens in Donbas in 2014, killing no fewer than 14,000 of them over the next 8 years; while Putin’s Russia pleaded for peace and compliance with Minsk2!
While such distortions are to be expected from lying, propagandising politicians and warmongering armchair generals, they are disgraceful omissions from any self-respecting journalist. Are we still running with the “unprovoked” invasion narrative? Really?
And to add insult to injury also still working on the premise that Russia is severely damaged economically and is losing the war?? This is childish.
Journalist putting forward the view that this was an unprovoked attack haven’t bothered to look at the history of this conflict. After Minsk2 the West spent their time and money installing a new government in Kiev, rearming the Ukrainian army and backing this army to massacre 14000 Russian speakers in the Donbas. They then invited Ukraine to join NATO!!!
Tut tut, you mustn’t mutter actual FACTS, it spoils the narrative somewhat.
Yes, we are running with the invasion being “unprovoked”, because it is true. As to NATO, Putin basically personally facilitated the accession of Finland and Sweden, so he can’t have too much of an issue with its “eastward encroachment”.
You may need to (a) consult a dictionary on the meaning of ‘unprovoked’ and (b) study the history of Ukraine not least the Maidan coup orchestrated by Victoria Nuland (nee Kagan, ala the Khazarian Kaganate?).
(c) It may also come as a shock to you but Finland and Sweden are entirely separare countries unlike Ukraine which has been part of the USSR.. big difference. Also, (d) those two countries joined Nato while Russia was fighting an existential war against the might of Nato/Ukraine and so Russia was helpless to take action to prevent it. They will tegret their decisions..
A final point (e) is that neither Sweden nor Finland was massacring ethnic Russians in their thousands as was Ukraine in the Donbas..
So, several huge differences and false conflations there I’m afraid.. in short, your knowledge of the situation is sadly minimal.
The Maidan Revolution was an uprising by the Ukrainian people to get rid of a paid Russian stooge. Don’t believe me? Where does said stooge reside now? As to studying history, I think you might find that Finland was a Grand Duchy of the Russian Tsar for quite a while (which I assume explains why the Finns hate the Russians so much). As to the “ethnic Russians” in Ukraine, if they don’t like living there, they are welcome to move to Russia.
But Finland was part of Russia as well.
Ukraine was independent when Russia invaded which was confirmed by Russia in Budapest memorandum.
In Ukrainian independence referendum 1991 Donbass and Luhansk voted over 83% for independence and even Crimea 54% for the same.
If you are so concerned by casualties in Donbas what about many hundred of thousands killed by Russia in Czechnia?
So it is you who have no real knowledge of this part of Europe.
If we followed your logic re Ukraine why should Ireland be independent?
You were part of Britain foe centuries and do not even have your own language unlike Ukrainians.
Follow the Finnish model – a large, defence-oriented military. Professional core with a citizen reserve. “Our communities” are welcome not to serve; they forgo citizenship.
Yes, I know this will never happen.
Yes, I am very happy that Finland is now in NATO. I was there late last year. The Finns are very impressive people.
And Russia still occupies 20% of Finlands territory since 1940.
Strange how pro Russian clowns on here and elsewhere never mention what Russia stole but keep claiming land of other countries for Russia.
The metropolitan elite want Brixit overturned so they can return to well-rewarded jobs working in and with Brussels bureaucracies, resume easy travel to their second homes in Europe, and all the other rewards that went to the right people. The Continent has always been riven with feuds and wars and this will never change. The UK is well out of it but try to tell that to the revanchists on the left.
Russia could attack our infrastructure, gas lines, optical fibre. Plausible deniability or openly. They could even fire missiles if we fire at them. It wouldn’t take much to cause financial havoc. We need to stop pretending this is a spectator sport.
Also, surveys are meaningless. What does support Ukraine mean? This is not a football team, ask each respondent if they would donate £10, £100, 10% of their salary, that is a better survey of intent. Ask them if they would send a son to the trenches. We are fantasising about war, let’s focus on our economy instead.
We need to stop pretending that Russia is anything other than the Evil Empire it always was, and always will be.
A large number of Germany’s senior Army officers recognised that Hitler’s expansionism would lead to disaster, and plotted to have him arrested. They recognised that they would need to get the Army, and the public, on their side, and for that they needed a demonstration that Hitler was leading them in to a disastrous war. But every climbdown by Britain’s and France’s leaders, their failure to show strength and resolve, and the capitulations of neighbouring regions to annexation, strengthened Hitler’s support. War became inevitable. That’s where we are now with Putin and Russia.
The refusal of youth to take up arms began in the mid 1960s when middle class American males opted out of the Vietnam War. Putin exempted Moscow and St Petersburg from conscription to disguise the fact that middle class/privileged Russians are not willing to die in Ukraine or indeed for any cause. Ditto with middle class/privileged Ukrainians and so it will be in Europe.
The British establishment has lost the plot if it thinks it can persuade 21st century public opinion to pay the cost of the country being on a war footing. Maybe sad, definitely true.
Does anyone ever question when media tries to interpret Donald Trump? They never get it right. Neither do UK politicians. They’re folding their arms, stamping their feet and harrumphing you all to disaster because they don’t like Trump calling it like it is. You have children in charge. The UK is doomed.
Test
…and for a touch of ad absurdum: Two birds, one stone. You can take some of those new arrivals you have there that are stirring up a ruckus and suit them up in Army greens, slap a Union Jack on their shoulder and a beret of a novel color, preferably one not found in nature, and send them to become peacekeepers. [Welcome to Britain, your boat leaves in one hour.] No need to worry about language training, they need not be able to speak English or Ukrainian or Russian or to each other. They need not be supplied with weapons, if they don’t already have some on their persons, as they will just be keeping the peace, not making it. Just like your fab constables. No need to send officers over them, one thing a gang is good about seeking their own levels and determining who is in charge. Sure, some might go AWOL, but it’s a long walk back to old Blighty and they might get distracted or lost on the way. At worst, one of them might figure it all out and solve the whole shootin’ match. Cost you one Victoria Cross and renaming a Community Centre.
Forget about the theoretical question of whether the war is in our interests. It isn’t within our capacity.
So far all the discussion has been abut a conventional war with Russia, with troops on the ground etc.
Ian Garner has said here that he thinks an asymmetric war is a possibility and needs to be prepared for;
https://twitter.com/irgarner/status/1894381811687371091
Comments in the Guardian were made to a similar effect last year, i.e. that the Russians would stage a series of low-level revenge attacks against the UK, short of actual war, in retaliation for our support for Ukraine. I think this possibility is even more likely than Dr Garner’s scenario and should be taken seriously, possibly by beefing up our intelligence services (MI5 and MI6).
Beautiful.
Does Vance know how many books have been banned in schools in the US?
Its not ‘tens of thousands’ of casualties, its hundreds of thousands