There are quite a lot of things that I only know a little about. That is, of course, true of everybody. Life is too short, and the world is too complex, for us to know a great deal about more than a relatively limited range of subjects. However, that has never stopped politicians from claiming to be the master of any brief that they are given, and for that reason alone, I feel able to ask a question about defence this morning.
It has been widely reported that UK-built Storm Shadow missiles were used by Ukraine to attack targets within Russia yesterday. Very little has been officially said about this, so the consequences of these attacks are not yet known, and as far as I am aware, neither are the targets. But that really does not matter as far as I am concerned.
What does matter to me is what, precisely, the UK thought it was doing by permitting this use and what it hopes might happen as a consequence. I can ask that question because whilst I am not an expert on defence, I have in my time prepared a great many plans for businesses of varying sizes, and what I know as a consequence is that no plan is of any merit or has any chance of success unless the reason for its creation is known. In turn, the reason for its creation must involve the imagining of a desired outcome from whatever activity is to be undertaken. I think it quite reasonable to suggest that if that is true of business, life in general, and politics, then it is also true when it comes to firing missiles into Russia.
So what is the UK‘s goal in permitting this action, which was a necessary precondition for these missiles to be fired?
Is it, as seems most likely, that the UK was playing its usual support act role to the USA, where Biden is desperate to take some final military steps before Trump arrives on the scene and supposedly ends the war in Ukraine in a day? Of all the possible explanations for this action, this seems by far the most likely when no other has been stated.
Alternatively, does the UK believe that firing missiles into Russia is an act without consequence, which it can, therefore, permit Ukraine to do without anyone paying any attention because Russia will not notice what has happened?
Or is it that there is some grand master plan that now exists that demonstrates that after 1,000 days of the war in Ukraine, an end is in sight with Russia being expelled from that country, the likelihood of which appears almost impossible to imagine?
Let me be clear. I do not know which of these motivated this action. But let me be equally clear. I very much doubt that Keir Starmer does either. As far as I can see, the UK, the US, NATO and even the government in Kyiv have no clear idea between them as to what they are now trying to achieve in pursuing the conflict in Ukraine, where something close to stalemate now seems to exist, but with Russia may be winning a slow war of attrition, which is what might have also motivated this action.
It is this lack of any explanation for the continuing waste of war in Ukraine that worries me. I am not keen to reward Putin for his actions. I am not in any way suggesting that we should be relaxed about Russia claiming territory by force. I would not be relaxed about any country doing that. But, what is apparent is that there is no obvious way in which this war will end, and that is a situation of benefit to no one, including Ukraine, its people, and those who have yet to die there if this war is perpetuated.
What we do know is that this war must eventually end because all others in history have done so. That is the inevitable consequence of those who are involved reaching the conclusion that they are either no longer worth pursuing and, therefore, either surrendering or negotiating a peace. In this case, the stalemate suggests that a negotiated peace must now become the inevitable trajectory for a solution to this conflict. It is hard to see any other that is now available.
But, in that case, why did Keir Starmer permit the use of British-made missiles against Russia? Who was he trying to impress? What was the strategic goal? And what was the risk analysis? I sincerely hope there was one. These are all fair questions to ask.
I am not sure that there are any known answers. It is that which worries me. When Starmer appears to have so little idea about so much that he is doing, by noting this, I am adding it to my list of concerns.
Starmer sold himself to the country on the basis of managerial competence, as a result of which millions of people were persuaded that he might be able to think. Evidence to support that claim has not been readily available since July 5. This action can only add to the doubt about his ability.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Starmer is trying to work out how he can “stand shoulder to shoulder on the basis of shared values” with Biden now, and then with Trump in January, without moving.
The tragedy is that he doesn’t know how.
Richard, great post again. Starmer is a clown, I think that much we can gather now. I would suggest you are right when you say the UK is just following its poodle duties to the US. I would also suggest that war is a very lucrative business, so when the economy and GDP is struggling, what else is better than selling expensive weapons and distracting the population with war than actually tackling the issues.
It would be interesting to see any correlations in history between when an economy/society is struggling and the appetite for war. I suspect there will be strong correlation.
I have a heating engineer in today and even he had noted how quickly ‘Storming Starmer’ agreed to use UK missiles without a parliamentary debate?
How did that happen?
Democracy? My arse.
And what’s with this naming of lethal weapons as if they belong to a video game?
Pathetic.
The only way my kids are going to war for this dump is if Starmer’s bairns are first in the queue.
Thank you, PSR.
As with the chief rabbi’s youngest son, I imagine the bairns will serve in the IOF.
Why the surprise at Starmer’s actions? UK prime ministers have so much power – more than US presidents. Sunak made a unilateral decision to cancel HS2’s northern leg, years and years of planning and preparation by thousands of people and billions wasted on a long-term national project that had cross-party support, because Sunak (egged on by the Treasury) saw a chance to bin it and spend the money on pre-election bribes. No consulting parliament, no Commons debate, just one man acting alone. You’re right; it’s not democracy.
PSR, I am in complete agreement with you. I have mentioned before on here though that we live in a democracy illusion in the west. I am not saying I would trade with the likes of China/Russia, but at least their population knows they don’t live in a democracy and have a dictatorship, rather than living under a lie.
You make a good point, who in their right mind would fight for their country in the west when we know governments don’t serve their people, actually shaft their people and are just as corrupt as the ‘enemy’. I certainly wouldn’t fight for what the UK stands for or would not let my children get involved. But actually to answer my own question, watching the BBC question time, it would seem most of the audience believe the western propaganda and would be willing to fight against Russia, judging from their support of escalating the war. Jesus it’s depressing
Hmmm I am not against the use of such missiles against targets in Russian territory. You ask is there a coherent plan by the UK and USA – probably not. The west has been far to slow to support Ukraine over the last few years which has aided Russia. Too much of too little and too late.
Russia has, unsurprisingly, responded today
They will yes
Richard, I have no answers to your excellent questions – well put, well asked – but yesterday I came across this relevant post:
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/a-strange-defeat
I’ve only read it once so far (as it’s very long) but there might be something there to expand our thinking on war, strategy and the managerial mindset of today’s politicians.
It is a good post, worth reading
It influenced wyat I wrote, I suspect
I read that post too by Aurelian (I receive them via email) and it was a real eye popper/opener. It helped explain a lot which puzzles me greatly about how governments appear to run and the often weirdo/illogical/ineffectual policies they come up with and/or attempt to put into effect.
As a complete tangent, I have this ‘theory’ (probably completely wrong) that…. Colonel Smithers & Aurelian are one & the same person. I don’t even really know why I think this, but they do have similar writing styles. I must admit that, along with Pilgrim Slight Return & the Tampa Bay bloke/woman, I look out for the Colonel’s the most.
“There are quite a lot of things that I only know a little about. That is, of course, true of everybody. Life is too short, and the world is too complex, for us to know a great deal about more than a relatively limited range of subjects. However, that has never stopped politicians from claiming to be the master of any brief that they are given, and for that reason alone, I feel able to ask a question about defence this morning.”
That’s an excellent argument for politics – and politicians – not ruling our lives. Thus rather destroying the central thesis of The Courageous State…
Wrong
It’s a very good explanation for the need to learn how to think strategically
You really did quite spectacularly miss the point
Mark Galeotti has said that Russia is slowly losing the war and that Ukraine is losing it faster. Putin has mobilised his country for war and the west has not. Simply put; Ukraine is not as important to western leaders as it is to Putin. The plan seems to be to prevent Ukraine becoming totally part of Russia. A part from that there seems a great deal of flexibility in terms of desired outcomes. The west believes that the worst case scenario for Ukraine is to pause the conflict, completely demilitarise and accept Putin’s war aims and then Putin restarts the war at a later date. Despite what western leaders say, it looks like that they can live with it.
US officials have been briefed not to talk about the reasons behind the decision for allowing strikes on Russia. There hasn’t been an official statement confirming the change in policy. That hasn’t stopped the incoming Trump administration proclaiming that the policy is torpedo their peace plans.
What peace plan?
I agree with you and I also hate what Starmer is agreeing to ( and his attitude to Palestine) and I hate the idea of worsening world peace…. but what should we do to end these dangerous wars Richard ?
Stop the posturing my politicians
Stop pretending all lines on the map are permanent when many are inappropriate
Thank you, Richard.
Funnily enough, one of the advisers to the Hungarian government and its ambassador to the Holy See is a Habsburg. He knows very well what his dynasty did in that region and what happened after their empire collapsed.
Richard – none of us, least of all you, need to be over defensive about our lack of military expertese – given the series of disasters military experts and indeed military men have led us into .
Iraq, Afghanistan – in particular – and the dismal record of procurement – leaving us with sitting duck aircraft carriers without planes and which cant go anywhere without US supporting vessels, tanks which dont work etc etc. And dont get started about the breaking of the nuclear proliferation treaty by upgrading ‘our’ nuclear ‘deterent’.
It’s never been clear what the objective has been in Ukraine. All Western commentators were talking about ‘victory’ for 18 months – now they dont – and the previously unmentionable ‘land for peace’ has now been uttered by some Trumpites among others.
Richard Sakwa is pretty convincing about the hubristic post Soviet looting of Russia by West- colluding oligarchs etc – with people starving – helped to create the present day Putin – in what he calls the ‘lost peace’.
An agreed stalemate with continued Russian occupation of Donbas – but still being formally part of Ukraine looks the best that can be achieved.
Starmer’s limited vision -seems to be to seem virile – ‘look tough’ but just do what US wants.
Its a dangerous world and our politicans dont seem remotely up to it.
See here Richard Sakwa
https://theloop.ecpr.eu/russian-alienation-and-putins-revolt-against-liberal-modernity/
I would add also Jeffrey Sachs on the role of the NeoCons (both Democrats and Republicans) in the egging on things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOCBkN-UDd0
and particularly the role of Chicago school neoliberal economists advising Yeltsin to do the big bang liberalisation that led to chaos and the impoverishment of many Russians out of which Putin arrived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)
Thanks
and mnay of the Russian Oligarchs who made their money out of that are supporters of Putin.
Often the military men have been over ruled. The Soviet army advised against more involvement in Afghanistan. Many of our military advised against Iraq. The Pentagon Papers showed the CIA knew the war was lost long before the Gvt.
I am sceptical about assertions that the war was engineered.
No govt in Europe wanted a war and none were geared up for it. The US was better prepared and tried to discourage it.
Putin made an opportunistic decision and because he is surrounded by people who won’t contradict him, got it wrong and the rest have been scrabbling to respond since. Post invasion speculations that it is being pursued for profit or to bleed Russia are just speculations
Western politicians may have talked about ‘victory’ but almost certainly they knew it only happen – like Mariner in another post- because of internal Russian collapse.
As so often happens in history ‘cock-up’ explains things better than conspiracy.
@Andrew Broadbent
You’d appreciate “On the Psychology of Military Incompetence”. by Norman Dixon.
You’d be delighted and appalled simultaneously. Maybe you’ve already read it?
Others here might also find the book illuminating.
The only problem I have with allowing short-distance strikes into Russia (a couple of hundred miles is considered short-range for these types of missiles), is that it wasnt allowed sooner. It should have been green-lighted by the west much nearer the start of the conflict and we wouldn’t be in this situation now.
The Russians have invaded Ukraine with the intent of annexing the whole country – many of their state-sanctioned propagandists have claimed it isn’t even a real country and should naturally be part of a ‘greater’ Russia. Putin’s clearly fascist state is claiming that the Ukraine are Nazis which is a nonsense. Would a Nazi country elect a Jewish, Russian-speaking President? The invasion was ultimately to try and steal or at the very least gain control over the country’s assets – which includes their children. In addition to being the ‘bread basket of Europe’, Ukraine has oil and gas and lots of mineral wealth. It is a war of conquest, nothing more.
The Russians have committed war crimes since the start of the invasion – massacring civilians in Bucha during the early stages of the war, launching hundreds of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and thousands of drones at the major cities indiscriminately murdering civilians. They have drone operators deliberately following and killing civilians in the cities (Kherson, especially) and towns close enough to the front line to be within range. They proudly post these videos online – freely available if you have the stomach to look for them. They have abducted Ukrainian children from the occupied regions and taken them to Russia. Murdering POWs seems their latest war crime. Appeasement simply can’t work in such a situation.
Putin has threatened escalation at every stage that a new tranche of western weapons have been supplied to Ukraine, all the while escalating himself with the use of Iranian-designed drones and now Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles. We now have thousands of North Korean troops sitting on the border with Europe with threats that tens of thousands more may join them.
In spite of this and the slow, slow drip of western weaponry into Ukraine, they have held out, destroying most of the huge Soviet-era stocks of armoured vehicles and most of their well-trained armed forces – we’re talking tens of thousands of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and so forth, not to mention hundreds of thousands of casualties. The sanctions and the losses in the war have led to the Russian state being on the brink of collapse. The Russian economy is shattered, the loss of life and injury has ruined their already terrible demographic situation and they will soon suffer begin hyperinflation. Their foreign currency reserves and gold are almost exhausted so printing vast amounts of money will be their only option. We know where that leads in an economy which is crumbling. Their rail system which is absolutely vital in such a large country is falling to pieces. They can’t manufacture the bearings they need, can’t manufacture the correct types of oil, have an enormous staff shortage and can’t replace their failing rolling stock.
To surrender to Putin now (which is what a forced peace would effectively be) would lead to a substantial chunk of Ukraine being annexed, as was the case in 2014. We let that happen without anything but stern words, ignored what happened in Georgia, have turned a blind eye to their information warfare within our countries and it is clear that if we allow Russia to ‘win’ this war, it will only set us up for the next invasion once they have had the years to rebuild their military forces. Given the sabre-rattling still going on within Russia, eyes will then inevitably turn to Poland and the Baltic states.
It certainly is a war of attrition with terrible losses on each side (and many more Ukrainian civilians affected), but the narrative pushed by the media that the Russians are ‘winning’ isn’t actually true. They are advancing a few square kilometres here and there for the cost of thousands of casualties. During 2024, for instance, Russia has reportedly captured around 800 square kilometers of territory. Of a country with a land mass of over 600,000 square kilometres.
Appeasement can’t work in situations such as this. We need to help Ukraine hold their course. Ultimately, it will take the collapse of the Russian economy to end this conflict and this is close.
Fears of escalation have stopped a quicker supply of necessary weaponry to Ukraine, but Putin has proved to be bluffing every time one of his red lines has been crossed. Tacit Chinese support in supplying goods in return for cheap oil (something India is also buying) and huge amounts of ammunition sent from North Korea are the main reason that Russia hasn’t quite collapsed already. Putin has been warned against the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict by China and it would be the end of him, as I’m sure he knows. The prevailing winds would take fallout across Russia, and notably the Oblasts annexed in 2014, which he claims is Russia. You can’t nuke what you claim is your own country.
It is rare that I have supported Starmer in most of his decisions, but allowing a small number of longer-range strikes won’t make a huge difference to this conflict. It does indicate a willingness (backed by NATO) to hold course. Trump may well drop support, but the remainder of NATO is more than strong enough to deal with any military threats from Russia whose military is shattered, let’s not forget.
Given the way things ultimately work in Russia, my guess is that Putin will ultimately fall out of a window at some point. The sooner, the better, though we need to reassess our relationship with Russia once that occurs.
We will have to disagree on this one
I hope that Mariner is proven right.
I do feel that we in the West have totally mishandled Russia since The Wall came down.
But Putin remains a very dangerous and unpredictable man, and I detect a nihilism there that frankly I am very uncomfortable with.
As somebody that has hosted a Ukrainian family since March 2022 – I 100% agree. I also get news 1st hand of what is going on.
As I have said before & again: this is a war about political alternatives. Ukraine – by no means a perfect democracy (which one is?) is a functioning one & one which speaks +/- the same language as those next door – Russia. Many Ukrainians used to talk, regulalrly to their relatives in Russia. This would, eventually have led to “changes” in Russia of the sort that Putin/his oligarchs don’t like. This is the core reason for the war – stamp out a democracy that more or less shares the same language and which is next door to Russia.
Once people understand this – things become clearer. As for the conduct of the war and “how the hell are we going to end it” – neither Europe nor Putin have a clue.
One thing for sure, from a China and USA point of view, it has been an excellent weapons testing/development exercise. Pity the poor soldiers on either side.
I absolutely agree with Mariner on his POV. We in Europe have been late on almost every call for support for a European country which has been invaded.
The beginnings have been over many years and include Putin’s agression in Georgia and Syria, conflicts in which we simply sat back. At the latest in 2014 we should have responded at the violation of the nuclear accord Ukraine had with Russia and the Minsk Agreement.
The provision of weapons has been late in almost every instance (the exception being a strong initial supply of anti-tank munitions) resulting in Ukrainien losses both in territory and people.
Not providing mid-range weapons to allow Ukraine to deplete Russian supplies just over the border while allowing Russia to continually bomb infrastructure and civilians I think is morally questionable.
Putin has managed to scare us into inaction every step of the way by waving the accusation of “escalation”, whereby he is the only one who has escalated the conflict.
There have been multiple missed opportunities for the West to intervene in a practical way imho.
And I think this continued lack of effort is going to have consequences well into the future.
I’m also fully with Mariner on this issue/topic, Richard, and I like to point out a few more things that he doesn’t specifically cover.
First, in your post you act as if the use of Storm Shadow missiles is new (the French equivalent is SCALP, and they are supplying them to Ukraine too). It isn’t. The UK have been supplying these to Ukraine (as have the French) since 2023. Indeed, I think Ben Wallace was Defence Secretary at the time of their first use.
However, their use has been limited to targets in the occupied territories (e.g. Crimea, Donetsk, etc). This was despite the UK and France agree to requests from Zelensky that the missiles could be used against targets in Russia. Why? Because Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles contain a US supplied guidance system and were therefore subject to the US ban on Ukraine using ATACMS (i.e.tactical ballistic missiles) type weapons on targets in Russia for fear of ‘escalating’ the conflict.
As Timothy Schneider (yes, that one) has noted, this is the first time in the history of warfare that a country that is being attacked has not been able to retaliate against targets in the aggressor country. Furthermore, as Schneider has also noted, this is accepting Russia’s ‘rules of war’, which, given Ukraine didn’t initially posses any weapons akin to ATACMS/Storm Shadow – and even now has to largely rely on drones to attach target in Russia – is akin to asking Ukraine to defends itself with one arm tied behind its back.
And this is no small matter, but perhaps one that you and others who’ve commented negatively on Starmer’s permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against targets in Russia have missed. EVERY DAY Russia launches glide bombs (i.e. ‘dumb’ bombs fitted with wings and, usually, guidance systems) from aircraft that fly from airbases just out of range of Ukraine’s existing capabilities (apart from slow moving, easy to shoot down, drones). Typically glide bombs are extremely powerful and can cover a distance of around 60 km, and so cities in Ukraine not far away from the line of conflict (such as Kharkiv), are routinely hit by such bombs irrespective of whether there are military targets present or not.
In a typical week the Russians launch about 600 (yes, six hundred) glide bombs into Ukraine from aircraft that take off from airbases not that far into Russia, but outside the range of the weapons Ukraine has. This is one of (maybe the main) reason why Zelensky has repeatedly asked the US to give them permission to use ATACMS/Storm Shadow – so that the Russians would be forced to withdraw their aircraft to bases sufficiently far away from Ukraine that they could no longer use glide bombs – thus saving the lives of the many innocent civilians (not to mention troops on the front line, who are also subject to bombing by glide bombs) who are routinely killed and maimed by this munition.
Two final points to add. First, the target of the Storm Shadow attack earlier in the week is well known. It was a command post on Russian territory (see here for a report: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1859678590151049424).
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I read in full the article by Aurelien (A Strange Defeat) which another commenter links to and which you acknowledge. They certainly know the difference between a strategy and a plan, and they make many valid points about NATO’s/Western support for Ukraine – which due to the US’s (Biden’s) worry about ‘escalation’ has actually meant that too often it’s been akin to appeasement. But the degree to which the article is tilted toward putting a positive spin on all that Russia does militarily is seriously dodgy (note to Aurelien: Fact. The Russians did think they’d be in Kyiv in three days, not least because they landed paratroopers at Hostomel airport – not far outside the city – with the specific task of eliminating Zelensky and his government such that the vanguard of the military convoy that had entered Ukraine from the East would simply drive to Kyiv without resistance. Quite possible in three days).
In closing I’d just add that if anyone actually wants to know what’s going on in Ukraine without the taint of Russian mis/disinformation that creeps into nearly all mainstream reporting (and Aurelien’s musings ?) I’d strongly recommend following Anton Gerashchenko, whose now done the sensible thing and moved to Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/antongerashchenko.bsky.social).
I think you miss why I first posted, Ivan.
I suggested Starmer and NATO have no end game.
That is a position Aurelian agrees with, but I do not agree with all their views.
Nor does it mean I buy Putin’s arguments. I don’t have to also agree with much of what has been posted here in response, which reflects the fact that there is a great deal we do not know for sure. All I was arguing was our leaders have no apparent idea how to end this war, and saying Putin must retreat as Starmer did yesterday makes no sense when we know he won’t.
So, what is the end game? However we got here, where I think the facts can all be disputed, where do we go from here. That is the question to which an answer is needed.
A fine post.
The end game? What we know +/- for certain. Russian artillery – 80%+ has been destroyed. Tanks 70%+ – destroyed. APCs, nearly 70% – destroyed.
These stats are supported by sat photos of emptying tanks/arty parks. This leaves speculation wrt to Putin and what he hopes from Trump. The “meat wave attackes+glide bombs work. But what happens when there are much smaller numbers of tanks/APCs & supporting arty? Meat+glide bombs will not then work. Stalemate?
As per WW1, I’d suggest we are in unknown territory. Autonomous drones? maybe? I’d hazard a guess that both the USA and China are very interested in seeing how drone warfare advances – & have very little interest in the welfare of either Ukrainian soliders or the poor bloody Russians (for a second put yourself in their position).
Ukraine & Gaza (let’s not forget Gaza), two stains on humanity.
The reality is both are hanging on hoping for something to turn up. For the Ukrainians the choices are to continue to fight but the war of attrition is taking its toll and collapse is on the cards. Or to agree to a truce and the loss of 20% of their territory with the strong possibility that Russia might resume the war in a few years. (and will insist Ukraine does not join NATO).
For Russia? Putin knows that an armed truce is the best he is likely to get if NATO continues to back Ukraine. Anything less would probably end his Presidency. He has tried to fight the war as if it was the ‘special military operation ‘ that he terms it. The Army has recruited from prisons, drafted disproportionately from the non-Russian areas and now is using North Koreans. He has had to use the regular army who have taken heavy losses and scale of it is concealed with any discussion often being punished by prison. Inflation is high and although the economy survives the sanctions, Russians remain poor by European standards. We don’t what is being whispered in Russia but the people must know.
So far bombarding the cities of Ukraine hasn’t worked but his other tool is the disinformation network. America’s foreign policy disasters like the Iraq invasion and support for Israel, make it easy for Putin to conflate with this war.
Possibly the use of longer range weapons is to disrupt supplies further mass attacks. Armies need huge quantities of fuel, food & ammunition to advance. If there is no quick victory, he might be tempted to go for negotiations which would secure recognition of his territorial gains and he could present himself to the world as a peacemaker and to the Russians as a victor claiming (falsely) he was only ever interested in the oblasts (regions) with a larger Russian speaking population.
It is so targic that both Russia and the US are run by leaders who are motivated by ego and pride.
Thank you, Richard.
How about, and this is from either coming across him or people who have:
Ukraine is slowly, but surely and at gathering pace, being overwhelmed*. Politicians and commentators are now preparing for after the war and the need to say they did their best, but it was others at fault. See also Macron. *UK local authorities were notified on Monday to prepare for an influx of refugees.
Starmer is one of the “we must do something” (anything regardless of utility and strategy) types. He’s a micro manager, too, and may well have overruled wiser heads in the military and his diplomatic and legal advisers. This morning, one rag hinted at that in the BBC’s brief look at the press.
Starmer relies heavily on the Blair machine for his thinking and their style of government, i.e. sofa government. It’s possible the gung ho types employed by Blair squeezed out military, diplomatic and legal advisers.
Starmer was never the competent bureaucrat the MSM portrayed. His management of the crown prosecution service and, with regard to many cases (Saville, Worboys, the Fayed brothers (sic) and possibly the Epstein associates in the UK (300 British residents on the flight logs and in the address books)), expenses at the CPS and freebies as leader of the opposition, his judgment left a lot to be desired, according to insiders. An Oxford professor of Indian origin recently wrote about that. Others are fearful.
Going back to his days at the CPS and predating the Assange case, Starmer has sought to ingratiate himself with the neo cons in Washington. They helped his campaign to undermine and eventually oust Corbyn. Starmer struggled to find a safe seat. Ed Miliband was, ahem, prevailed upon to impose Starmer on Holborn in succession to Frank Dobson.
We have a few more years of Starmer.
Those years are not going to do the UK any good
Thank you, Richard.
I don’t disagree and then look at the likely successor, especially if the Blair machine can install him a bit before 2029, Wes Streeting.
“What we do know is that this war must eventually end because all others in history have done so.”
This is an argument that is endlessly repeated. I am not sure that it is true; or at least I might phrase that like CEM Joad; it depends what you mean by “end”. You can say the Korean War ended. But it really isn’t saying very much. What I don’t like about the proposition is that implies a settlement, but again, we are reduced to asking; what do you mean by “settlement”, in the case of the 38th Parallel, for example. I would stress, Korea is only an example. Kashmir may provide another; without opening even more ‘cans of worms’ for the conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is always conventional, but not always wisdom.
What can I offer as a way out from all that? Not much more than cans of unopened worms.
Or rather unopened cans of worms! There you are; this is what happens to you with cans of worms.
It is possible that an adequate response from Ukraine’s allies could have ended the war in months. I have always been frustrated that this did not happen. For the allies, there are perhaps two advantages to the current strategy of drip-feeding resources just fast enough to maintain the stalemate: firstly, exhausting Russian materiel and industrial capacity reduces the threat from Putin’s expansionism, and secondly the war has provided an excellent opportunity for allies’ defence industries both to profit and to test their latest killing machines. Fear of Putin using nuclear weapons may also have influenced thinking by the allies.
Perhaps the current ‘escalation’ by US and UK is just a prelude to peace negotiations, intended to strengthen Ukraine’s position and weaken Putin’s. It seems that Trump will be pushing for a ceasefire, the relative strength of the two sides will be important.
There’s an article today on Declassifieduk, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-sees-privatisation-opportunities-in-ukraine-war/
Thank you, Terry.
Richard and readers may be interested in who owns Ukraine’s farm land, which is one reason why I doubt the EU’s farming communities will allow Ukraine to join the EU without a big fight (as is happening in France at the moment over a free trade agreement with Mercosur): https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/war-theft-takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.
I have had the executive summary translated into Ukrainian & will have it circulated in Ukraine. The parasites that think they can feast on Ukraine should be aware that, when the war finishes, the soldiers will return home, they will be less than amused if USA and EU oligarchs have taken over large lumps of the country that they fought for and their comrades died for. They may well have the inclination to do something about it, directly. Kiev has windows, as well.
An honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between a proxy war and direct war crossed? Official attempts to present the deployment of US Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and UK Storm Shadows as giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself is an attempt to avoid a discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power, Russia.
What is clear is that the US initiated the use of ATCAMS in Ukraine. These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on US intelligence and targeting, they are operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites. The stipulations of use and number of systems deployed is not yet clear, but here’s what we know: ATACMS are solid-fuelled surface-to-surface ballistic missiles with a range of 300 kilometres. When fired, they take a high atmospheric path and fall at a steep angle. They have a capable payload of 225 kilograms of explosives or cluster munitions, they can be used against wide-area and lightly armoured targets, and they have a circular error probability of 9 meters.
In layman’s terms, this means Ukraine now can strike much deeper into Russian territory than it previously could, with missiles that are more difficult to intercept and that are extremely accurate at their maximum range. The UK decision to fire Storm Shadows came in the wake of the US decision and involved the use of both US and UK intelligence and targeting systems.
Perhaps the introduction of ATACMS/Storm Shadows will change the geography of the battlefield. As many as 14 Russian airfields and launch sites now lie within their range, as do key points in Russian logistics, including equipment and troop staging areas and roads. All the Kursk region of Russia is well within striking distance of Ukraine’s new missiles. Russia’s Ministry of Defence claims to have shot down five of them during the US strike on 19 November and two Storm Shadows during the UK attack on 21 November.
But without knowing how many ATACMS or Storm Shadows have been deployed or the location of launch sites, it’s difficult to say how truly game-changing these systems will be. Ukraine already has missiles that can strike farther than ATACMS, but it doesn’t produce enough of them to use in any scenario besides individual, pinpoint strikes. Russia, too, has the capability to hit targets throughout Ukraine – and has done so plenty of times – and yet the war continues apace. But irrespective of these systems, air power in Ukraine cannot and will not be the key determinant of the war.
The decision to use ATACMS and Storm Shadows does, however, open the door for more escalation. For starters, Russia has responded by finalising an updated nuclear doctrine, which lowers the threshold for a nuclear strike to include a conventional attack against Russia that poses a “critical threat” to its territorial integrity or sovereignty.
This includes damage to vital government and military facilities whose incapacitation would disrupt Russia’s nuclear forces. President Putin has also said the decision brings the West directly into the Ukraine conflict. That’s not to say that ATACMS/Storm Shadows will bring about nuclear holocaust, of course, but they narrow the margin for error in a war against a nuclear power. Today, we have seen Russia’s initial response with the deployment of non-nuclear medium range missile against energy infrastructure in Ukraine.
Washington and London should be honest about their intentions toward attacking Russia directly. President Putin will undoubtedly encourage panic about the risk of a Russian over-escalation. This will give Russia space to respond in a moderate way such as upping strategic attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine; possibly targeting NATO weapon distribution hubs in neighbouring NATO states; and/or making a limited and pre-signalled strike on a US/UK military facility in Europe or elsewhere. The escalation ladder across these actions will be determined by extent to which ATACMS/Storm Shadows are effective in changing events on the battlefield.
Eh? ATACMS (the shorter-range bloc with cluster munitions) have been in use by Ukraine since October 2023. They’ve destroyed a number of Russian air defence systems (their equivalents of Patriot systems) and have made Crimea (indelibly part of Russia according to Putin) a no go area for many types of Russian hardware. They are fired from HIMARS rocket launchers supplied back in 2022. It is Ukrainian troops operating them, though intelligence will be provided by the US and maintenance will be carried out by NATO soldiers. If I recall correctly, maintenance of the hardware was previously carried out outside of Ukraine, but it was announced relatively recently they this would move to within Ukraine.
ATACMS are effective, but almost obsolete – most of those used would need to be expensively decommissioned in the US very soon. 1970s technology, incidentally.
The late provision of ATACMS is a good example of how drip-feeding military aid to Ukraine has probably lengthened the conflict. If they had been provided in numbers before it was ‘announced’ they would become available, Ukraine could have used them against Russian airfields and parked aircraft (a target they were specifically designed to attack). These are the aircraft which are launching hundreds of the powerful but inaccurate ‘glide bombs’, not just at the front line, but also at cities, hitting civilian targets. As with so much of the weaponry, they announce they will supply it long before it is in use and give the Russians plenty of time to move vulnerable equipment out of range. It is a shame that Ukraine still don’t appear to have been provided with the longer-range versions of these missiles which have twice the range.
The Russians have now reportedly fired an ICBM at a close target in Ukraine. Obvious sabre-rattling because there would be no reason to use such a weapon for a short distance target.
Another threat of escalation is likely to be along before too long, when then next ‘red lines’ are inevitably crossed and then forgotten.
You are right ATCAMS have been fired into Crimea from Ukrainian territory. This is the first time they have been fired into Russia from Ukraine.
Your move, Starmer: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/11/international-criminal-court-issues-arrest-warrants-for-israel-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-and-former-minister-of-defense-yoav-gallant.html.
I sense a blog post coming on…..but there really too many deadlines to do one this afternoon.
Thank you, Richard.
We appreciate what you do and don’t expect you to produce such output at such frequency. You’re just getting started.
Thanks
Output might grow next year as I drop academic work.
Contrary to some posters, this is a conflict with many bad actors and no real virtues. Ukraine was known for its corruption and neo Nazis for a long time, Putin is a fading yet dangerous autocrat, Biden is a war hawk, and Starmer a puppet of Blair. Add in the military industrial complex in Eisenhower’s warning message, and the myriad little Leaders in Europe – and all that before we look at the other distractions – Israel, the Gulf, Sudan……etc. Not a moral soul amongst them IMO. for the first time since the early 80s, I am genuinely worried for my kids and grandkids.
The Failing Kursk incursion was a UK inspired plan. Starmer is in Ukraine to support this disaster. The missiles were used in the Kursk region and near a nuclear power plant in an attempt to use the limited land gained and a threat as a bargaining chip in the inevitable peace negotiations. He is carrying out a well trodden path of interfering in other countries that earned us the title Perfidious Albion. The deaths of countless people are of little consequence to this Trilateral stooge as demonstrated by his stance on genocide in Gaza. The world is tilting on its axis and instead of building a consensus for peace he is propping up a failing Western hegemony and seeking to find a relevance in a changing world. He is demonstrating his authoritarian tendency by not bringing this issue of missiles to Parliament.
Is the incursion into Kursk, ‘failing’?
It is certainly diverting a lot of Russian resources away from the front line though I suspect it won’t be known for some time whether the forces used make the incursion worthwhile. One thing it does means is that any putative peace deal (to be forced on Ukraine) isn’t possible if the lines are to be frozen depending on who currently holds which bit of territory. Putin couldn’t allow a decent-sized chunk of Russia to be in the hands of Ukraine at such a point.
From what I’ve read, a lot of the pressure on Ukraine on the front lines problems have come about because they didn’t build proper defensive lines in a certain area. However, though the Russians are grinding their way forward with ‘meat assaults’ with poorly-trained convicts and those who have signed up due to a large (in Russian terms),
As Richard suggests, there is widespread (if understandable) ignorance about what has led to the dreadful loss of “blood and treasure” in Ukraine. For instance, how widely known is it that the USA government was deeply implicated in the ‘Maidan’ coup d’état in February 2014 that removed President Viktor Yanukovych (who, for all his faults, had been democratically elected) and which led to what in effect then became a civil war in Ukraine?
How many are aware that subsequently Angela Merkel, François Hollande and Petro Poroshenko have all admitted that the so-called Minsk Agreements (aimed at peacefully resolving the ‘hot’ conflict between the forces of the post-coup Kiev regime and the areas of S-W Ukraine that objected to the coup) were signed by them essentially in bad faith, to gain time to build up the armed forces of the coup regime into a powerful fighting machine, intended to be able to resolve the conflict in the Donbas by force?
So this mess didn’t start in February 24th 2022, just as the Israel-Palestine conflict didn’t begin on October 7th 2023.
Richard Sakwa’s study “Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands” gives the history and an astute analysis up to 2015. For a briefer and more up-to-date account of how we got here there is this fairly recent article by Jeffrey Sachs: https://substack.com/home/post/p-145875430 and I suggest this 2024 article by John Mearsheimer is also very informative:
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
The launching of a few British long-range missiles into Russia will do nothing to alter the military balance, which is strongly in Russia’s favour. Russia has greater resources, world-class air defence systems and “escalation dominance”. But unfortunately it does take us one further step down the UK foreign policy establishment’s risky track of preferring conflict with Russia to diplomacy (exemplified by Boris Johnson’s sudden visit to Kiev in April 2022, where it is alleged that he persuaded Zhelenskyy not to accept the deal to end the hostilities that had been negotiated in Istanbul shortly before).
Thank you
“For instance, how widely known is it that the USA government was deeply implicated in the ‘Maidan’ coup d’état in February 2014”
I know people that were in the maidan at that time. They had exactly zero to do with the USA. It was a ground up movement. It was only a “coup d’etat” in the sense that ordinary people wanted closer ties with the EU – not with the oligarchs in Russia. This PoV has only strengthened over time.
The idea that the “US gov was deeply implicated” is a Kemlin talking point – which is laughed at by most Ukrainians.
Thanks Mike
This idea of the US being involved in the Maidan is persistent in my view because it rolls well with the general misinformation spread by Putin. Having looked for any evidence this is where I have landed:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/04/ukraine-maidan-revolution-russia-coup-myth-yanukovych/
The evidence is that Russia had been largely content with the arrangements made when Ukraine left the USSR in 1991. A long-term lease was arranged, enabling Russia to continue using the Sevastopol naval base, the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet since 1783. There was every indication that the two countries would continue to have reasonably good relations and close economic ties. But then the USA-NATO started meddling.
On 25 April 2014 US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gave a speech at the National Press Club, Washington DC in which she stated that the USA had spent $5 billion ‘promoting democracy’ in Ukraine.
What this meant in reality though was the use of the same regime-change methodology earlier tried out with success in Belgrade (Yugoslavia) in 1999-2000 – create social and political unrest by pouring in NGOs, financing so-called ‘civil society’ groups, buying up or setting up radio and TV stations and newspapers, bribing opposition figures and using the burgeoning new social media, aimed at causing discontent, especially among young people, and especially in the more European-oriented West of Ukraine.
This had culminated in the events in Kiev of February 2014, for which there is ample evidence that it was indeeed essentially a US-engineered coup to depose Yanukovych, who wished Ukraine to remain unaligned militarily (i.e. neutral, like Austria or Switzerland – it hasn’t done them much harm!). There is even a recording of Victoria Nuland discussing with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who precisely should take over in the Ukrainian government, once Yanukovych had been successfully ousted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoW75J5bnnE
The authenticity of this intercept has never been disputed by the USA.
George Friedman called it “the most blatant coup in history.” It‘s clear that Russia’s annexation of Crimea shortly afterwards was a reaction to it. The loss of the Sevastopol naval base would in effect have transferred control of the Black Sea from Russia to the USA; no Russian government worth its salt could possibly allow that.
By some some strange irony the 2014 coup was named the “Revolution of Dignity”. In fact it was an example of dirty realpolitik at its worst. In that respect not much has changed since then, apart from the fact that many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians have been killed or maimed – needlessly.
Yanukovych -“for all his faults” like being massively corrupt and receiving bribes from Russia – decided to repudiate the Accords signed with the EU and voted for by the Ukrainian parliament ( also democratically elected ).
In the months following his flight to Russia they held elections for the Presidency and the Parliament. In both cases pro-EU parties won .
As for your misunderstanding of Minsk which they European knew were not going to observed by the Russians (and were not ) i suggest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0dlz7tz/putin-vs-the-west-path-to-war-1-my-backyard
starting at about 45 mins.
and this youtube by a neighbour of Russia-a Finnish foreign minister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg&t=719s
Interesting to see Mearsheimer and Sachs quoted as sources.
Worth checking out what ‘Vatnik Soup’ has to say about them both, Sachs especially. According to the two, everything is the fault of the US/NATO and poor Vladimir had no choice but to invade Ukraine. They don’t really say anything about the war crimes carried out on a daily basis.
If they aren’t actually in hock to Putin, they are certainly fellow travellers.
I admit to long having had little faith in Sachs
Oh & a PS: the link to the Mearsehimer article. It is the usual blend of half-truths and omissions designed to bloster an argument (it is all about NATO) which does not stand up – once you talk to Ukrainians. I rather doubt Mr Mearshimer ever has. My advice is to take such articles with a massive dose of salt – he removes all agency from Ukrainians (trust me on this – they have plenty) whilst claiming its all a big NATO plot. Pathetic stuff from somebody that should know better.
(& the intention wrt to the invasion was – regime change – easily accomplished had Russia taken Kiev & the working assumption was – Ukrainian army was not motivated etc etc).
Mike, I’m sure you know that really there is no such uniform entity as “the Ukrainians”.
As Richard Sakwa shows, the inhabitants of that unfortunate land have long been split, not only linguistically, but also roughly between those whose orientation is towards the West, Europe, and those (primarily but not exclusively in the Donbas) who look East, favouring the maintenance of economic and cultural ties with Russia.
And in both camps there must also be millions who wonder why they should ever have been compelled to make a choice.
“no such uniform entity as “the Ukrainians”……..there is no such uniform entity as “the British”.
& your point is?
North of 80% in each region of Ukraine (the country) was in favour of independence.
This poll (in the bits not invaded and occupied by Russia) shows current support ref the war:
https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-majorities-believe-in-defeating-russia-support-recapturing-lost-territory/
As I survey some of the comments on this thread, it is difficult not to conclude that Rusia/Putin has done a good job.
Furthermore, in the same way as in the 1930s (the rhetoric from speeches & writing emanating from Germany was overlooked (oh he’s just exaggerating!) – so now. The Russia narrative is we want back the bits of the USSR that we lost & on which we place value. Belarussia is gone & Ukraine could be next. It is sad that people do not learn from history, it’s not hard – just listen to what people say – if it is repeated several times by significant people in gov, you can be sure it is +/- gov policy. Putin wants to reconstitute much of the USSR.
Thank you to Mike above with regard to Ukrainian land ownership. In addition to the Norwegian and Saudi sovereign wealth funds, there’s Bill Gates’ Cascade, named after the mountain range near his Seattle roots.
Is it all going to be so shameful that a ” centrist”/”progressive” ie. Joe Biden fails to bring peace to Ukraine and Russia and ends up making it worse by encouraging one side to carry on fighting. While an immoral narcicist like Trump just pops up and arranges some mutual compromises and bingo, thousands of lives are saved?
I wish that western politicians and media pundits would stop insisting that eastern European frontiers are set in stone, never to be adjusted. My sister-in-law is of Polish descent. I always wondered why, despite her pride in her roots, when her Polish parents were still healthy, they did not choose to visit the part of Poland in which the parents were born,before the last war. Then I realised that their home area wasn’t even in Poland anymore. It is now somewhere in Belarus or Ukraine. I suspect that it’s in Ukraine as my sister-in-law has a particularly hostile attitude to Ukrainians, inherited from her parents perhaps, regarding them as cruel and greedy.
How many people will die defending borders that could be adjusted by mutual agreement,”win a bit lose a bit”?
I think I mentioned that earlier
Dear Richard,
I despair when I read Mike Parr’s comments.
From Richard Sakwa’s ‘Frontline Ukraine’ see his comments re Victoria Nuland’s involvement in the Maidan demonstrations.
The ousting of the elected President was indisputably a coup d’etat, another regime change sponsored by the USA. Certainly the demonstrations started as protests against the corruption of the Ukrainian state but it was usurped by the Ukrainian oligarchs, some 100 of whom owned 85% of the wealth of the country.
We in the west are now backing one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Does anyone know of the massacres conducted by Stephen Bandera, the hero of the ultra nationalists in the Maidan Revolution? We in the west are supporting a country with whom we have no treaty. Why?
History does not repeat itself? The current situation reminds me of our futile promise to Poland in 1939.How were we going to deliver on it and how did we? Dropping leaflets on Berlin.
The use of our weapons against Russia will, I suspect, have negligible effect on the outcome of this war which will be decided on the ground where Russia has a significantly greater number of troops, artillery, drones etc and has complete air power.
It could have ended 2 years ago if our then PM had not encouraged the Ukrainians to sign the peace treaty agreed in Istanbul, without the subsequent horrendous loss of life and the destruction of Ukraine.
The Outcome? Crimea will never be returned to Ukraine and that can be placed at the precedent set by the West’s special treatment of Kosovo’s claim to independence. At least 4, probably 8, of the eastern oblasts of Ukraine, will remain at least under Russian control,if not incorporated permanently into Russia.
I also suspect that the present poor state of the German economy will lead to a fundamental examination of their relations with the US and Russia. Who has gained most from the rupturing of the Nordstream pipelines and who has suffered most?
I translated your comments into Ukranian. The person staying with us (involved in Maidan 2014 & born in the USSR – circa 1980s) laughed out loud. The difference between me & you is that I have 1st hand info on Ukraine – from Ukranians. They recognise that there remains massive corruption problems & once the war is over, there will be a large body of people determined to do something about it. All countries have corruption problems e.g. Covid in the UK, Germany – business-gov lobbying (& let’s not talk about CUM-X) etc. The move from USSR republic to independent republic gave rise to the oligarchs. It takes time and effort to get rid of them. As the report linked to by Col Smithers shows – the USA and EU are helping these oligarchs against the interests of Ukrainian citizens. A bit less finger pointing, a bit more understanding and no more use of Putin talking points would enhance your credibility in the eyes of Ukrainians.
(Oops, accidentally clicked on submit comment before finishing the post)
However, though the Russians are grinding their way forward with ‘meat assaults’ with poorly-trained convicts and those who have signed up due to a large (in Russian terms) payment, they are still taking only small tracts of land with enormous losses of equipment and personnel. Also, the many glide bombs, of course, which Ukraine is powerless to stop at present.
You’ll have to provide a source for your missiles used ‘near a nuclear power plant’ claim. Kursk oblast has a land mass a fair bit larger than the UK (we really are a small country), and I’ve not seen any claims before now that anything near a nuclear site was attacked. It would seem unlikely that military underground bunkers would be located close to such a site to me. I could be wrong, of course.
To ponder a different question, – the opposite to the one asked. What would be the consequences of Starmer refusing the request from the USA, to allow the Ukrainians to fire these missiles?
Harold Wilson, apparently refused to send British troops to Vietnam War. Since then we’ve sacrificed hundreds of lives because it’s been seen by those we elect to be in the UK’s interests.
Where’s Rupert Brooke when ya need ‘im?
I did a post on the US and UK decisions to fire medium range missiles into pre-2014 Russian territory. The West is playing with nuclear fire for no good reason. https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/why-is-the-west-playing-with-nuclear
For a useful history on the origins of the Ukraine war, see this interview with Jeffrey Sachs. https://scheerpost.com/2024/11/23/jeffrey-sachs-explains-the-russia-ukraine-war/
Thank you, Leah.
DuPont, Cargil + Monsanto bought up 30% of Ukraine’s farmland.
Who owns those companies. Blackrock.
Who owns the defense companies building weapons to destroy Ukraine. Blackrock.
Who has the contracts to rebuild Ukraine. Blackrock.
Who is Keir Starmer working with. Blackrock