Starmer appears to be telling anyone who will listen this morning that we should be, and maybe are, preparing for war.
War is always the resort of the power hungry charlatan seeking to distract attention from the failure of their domestic agenda, very occasional exceptions, that prove the point, apart.
So, who is Starmer going to war with, and why?
What is the reasoning?
What would the end game be? You have to know in advance.
And, what would justify the sacrifice?
As far as I can work out, Starmer is as clueless in these things as anything else. So, what right has he got to talk about war, preparedness for it, or anything that might sacrifice the lives of others in an attempt to save his political career, almost certainly in vain?
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!
Perhaps he is hoping for that “Galtieri moment” to save his & LINOs skin. It is worth remembering that Thatcher was heading to an electoral wipe out & then along came the Argentines. In fairness to Thatcher (hawk-spit) she did not plan it and the opposition was to say the least vile. Not sure who would attack the UK, the logisitics would be problematic (as always). For those interested in what “future war looks like”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsXE3LpHdBQ&t=1s
There is no blood & gore btw – just a sober discussion on realities in Ukraine. 12 mins in becomes interesting describing the impact of drones.
In a drone dominated war – what role tanks? not that this would apply to the UK – unless some country was able to land & get a foothold. But then we are back to logistics.
Starmer might have a problem wanting his own Falklands, particularly as Israel sold arms to Argentina.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-israel-secretly-armed-argentina-during-the-falklands-war/
Starmer lies and likely the security services’ first choice.
What’s his kompromat?
https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmer-joined-secretive-cia-linked-group-while-serving-in-corbyns-shadow-cabinet/
As the Romans said, “If you want peace, prepare for war”.
Following the end of the cold war we’ve been lucky enough to have gone through a period with no real physical threat to our islands.
However, as Putin has shown both deeds and rhetoric, this period has now ended. The Germans, Poles, Baltic states and other members of NATO are ramping up their military spending because Russia have proven once again they can’t be trusted and Putin’s surrogates/propagandists in the country have made clear that they continue to look westwards.
We’ve known about the covert warfare Russia have been carrying out for decades (and they are world leaders at online information warfare, supporting right-wing parties in western democracies), and Putin has now turned their economy into one which relies entirely on military production. The Baltic states would already have been invaded had they not been members of NATO and former Soviet Bloc countries know they are at risk as well.
It’s a terrible waste of resources, but we have little choice other than re-arm to deal with the new (yet old) threat.
I would actually advocate for a Finnish/Swedish approach with many more territorial forces training perhaps a few weeks a year. Again, a waste of resources, but even in the era of drones and airstrikes, infantry is always needed.
It would have been better if Ukraine had been properly supported with arms for the past 3 years because they have managed to destroy most of the Soviet era stockpiles through a defensive war of attrition and the Russian economy is teetering. However, we are where we are.
A terrible waste of resources, time and manpower, but there really is no alternative.
But we are not at military risk.
We are at cyber risk.
But a number of our NATO allies are at physical risk.
You can’t accept the benefits of a defensive alliance without accepting the responsibilities. If article 5 is called as Russia attempts to invade the Baltic states, or Finland, or Poland, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia if Ukraine falls (and so on), how are we going to go to their aid without a functioning military?
We’ve seen that we can’t rely on Trump (and probably his successor), so it will need to be a European effort.
On the assumption that Ukraine will be forced to cede some of their territory in any cessation of hostilities, you can be sure that Putin won’t just sit back satisfied with his rewards, even from such a ruinous war. Rearmament will commence immediately and the former Soviet bloc countries, especially will know it is only a matter of time before they are the next in the crosshairs.
Agreed, but what are you suggesting?
And where is the unity of action?
Anj alliance requires that.
I agree most of what you say though it may not get much agreement here. The art of war is getting what you want without actually fighting. Russia’s Dec. 2021 proposals look tempting for many. Withdrawing all nuclear weapons from Europe and eastern Europe not allowed to have other NATO troops based there; would mean Russia could dominate the east with its own forces leveraging their dominance -militarily, politically and so an extent, economically. I expect we will hear them again soon.
As you say the Baltic states might well have been retaken if they had not been members of NATO.
Spending the defence budget on local defence forces in Britain mean it will be irrelevant in terms of the main threat. We have to be able to deploy to the east with enough forces to rotate. If the Americans return a sensible administration after 2028, that would be even better but we can’t rely on it.
Russia is not that strong but can deploy resources to war more easily than the democracies.
The European end of NATO needs to be capable of a coordinated response. It is not sufficiently able at the moment
That is the best chance of peace in the circumstances.
But the threat of war is massively overstated
Possibly-let’s hope so.
But Russia’s neighbours take the view that they will be safer if they are better armed. And they ask for our support.
Sadly Mariner, you are correct, both in your statement that we have to rearm because of all the reasons you give, not least Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
And that if we’d helped Ukraine more Russia may have been defeated by now, hence avoiding the need for more expense now.
And that arms production is really a waste of resources when compared to other more socially useful forms of production, such as modern very low energy use houses.
But unfortunately now a necessary waste of resources. And to answer Richard’s point, cyber security must now be considered as a form of defence spending.
“Mariner”? – O.D. !
I think the suggestion is that quite possibly some nations may wish to go to war with us or our allies. And that we might want to contribute to the defence of people threatened by aggressors. Such as Russia. Potentially China.
On a more positive note, the military often have the human and technical resources (logistics, medical, etc) to contribute to disaster relief, and there is at least the hope that “boots on the ground” can assist with peace making and peace keeping in places where civil society breaks down.
Even peaceful and/or neutral countries such as Switzerland or Sweden invest a fair amount on defence. They have their own histories of war with stronger neighbours.
I am not saying we do not need a defence force.
That is not what it would seem Starmer wants.
Andf Russia and China do not need to attack us – they can destabilise us with cyber tactics much more easily.
As Pope Francis said – war is always a defeat.
Starmer seems just a reckless nut case. What happened to ‘British boots on the ground’ in Ukraine?
Inevitably, as you say Richard war is the last resort of the charlatan – so now we are getting a clarification of the UK industrial strategy for growth – lots of new missile and shell and bomb building factories.
You couldnt make it up.
I am confused. Why would the British government build armaments factories? Doesn’t neoliberal thinking expect the armaments industry to recognise the need (and the profit potential) and build them themselves?
Or are we going to manufacture armaments, a bit like British Steel used to manufacture steel?
Or are we gong to build the factories ad give them to the manufacturers, who will be suitably grateful?
The UK army at present is a shambles with limited number of recruits, personnel and gear if he is thinking of fighting the Russian War machine – besides doesn’t Starmer know they have waves of meat grinder (though I despise this expression), more drones you can shake a stick at & those nuclear weapons. We need diplomatic solution to the Ukraine War I see no other way out.
Thanks Richard, it is an extremely important question for us not only in the UK but also across EU.
Why is the war more important than fighting child poverty, building a sustainable NHS, solving the water crisis, taking care of our universities etc. We have so many issues that warrants attention and yet the government keeps telling us that now is the time to put taxpayers money to good use and supply arms to Ukraine and fight Russia with everything we have. Government seems to have no time for diplomacy but all the time and money for weapons and war. Every day brings more death and destruction in Gaza and yet there is there is absolute silence and zero action – the occasional call for accountability is bluster.
If I read the mainstream media it feels that that war is the only solution to all our problems. It is bizarre – UK is approx. 2000 KM away from the nearest Russian border and yet feel the need to prepare for a Russian invasion, really?
It would likely be Russia. At least in his thinking.
Of course if that were the case you would perhaps have to be much better at “playing the game” than he is. Like for example not opening the door for a Russian influenced political party to win the next election.
Of course Starmer wants some kind of military intervention to take minds off his domestic agenda and we see this morning he’ll be spending £1.5bn on at least six new defence factories according to John Healey.
Much depends on Trump, who makes a play on anti-intervention abroad, and instead wants trade wars, but Trump’s record in his first term escalated existing wars and tried to incite some disastrous new ones.
Given the current state of the armed forces -[ and we bare far from unique in this in Europe what tablets is he taking?
Europe is well equipped
And lacking any-coordination
You should remind us what the fiscal multiplier for military (not “defence”) spending is 🙂
There is literally no worse way to spend government money if GDP growth is the aim.
Agreed
He’s probably channeling his inner Thatcher, hoping for a Falklands type boost in popularity.
I always think that politicians who agitate for war should lead by example and go and fight on the front line.
I have watched a number of films on the theme of war as it really is.
Two or more well protected heads of state have a quarrel with each other. So they demand that young men on each side must join the armed forces. They are sent to a training school to learn how to kill the “enemy”. The enemy is the “other” armed side – or it could be unarmed civilians and children. Doesn’t matter – there is honour and glory to be experienced. And it can be an annual memorial!
“I am the enemy you killed my friend” Wilfred Owen’s Strange Meeting.
How on earth have we ended up with this moronic cypher in No. 10?
Answer, via a coup by an extreme Right Wing 5th Column of Entryists, who infiltrated the Labour Party to put their chosen stooge in place, and who then set about hollowing out the Party, to turn it into a Right Wing organisation, a world away from the Labour Party’s origins and original purpose.
But the plotters, led by Moron McSweeney, never counted on Starmer being quite so woodenly useless – being, as I used to describe him, a non-strategic unpolitician blundering his way to his Non-Socialist Nirvana in the Land of BoD, and almost certainly a Secret Services asset (certainly the view of Peter Oborne – see https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2023/september/25/exposed-keir-starmer-liar-murdochs-man-candidate-mi5-peter-oborne)
In my view, he’s an illegitimate PM – he lied his way into the Leadership, and started plotting to oust Corbyn 6 months before the 2019 GE (See https://novaramedia.com/2023/11/14/the-corruption-behind-starmers-rise-has-finally-been-exposed/), and he’s got to go.
If only he could take his whole dire Cabinet of Keystone Kops 4th-raters, and his whole faction with him, and let the Labour Party rediscover its original raison d’être.
These military Intelligence services connections are of interest. Back in my long ago London days, I once had an interesting exchange with the Irish wife of a Dublin banker being trained for what turned out to be Ireland’s Emerald Tiger economic expansion in The City. She recalled a conversation she had had with a British General at a dinner party. He told her the real reason for the ongoing violence in Northern Ireland was to keep the British Army realistically funded by its government. Last year I noticed this report. It outlines the argument that although Britain has no geographical or historical interest in Northern Ireland, with the rise of Russian expansionist aggression, the British government needs a military bridgehead there to prevent Ireland being a backdoor into Britain: https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/closing-the-back-door/
Reads like a camouflaged version of the financial argument of that General to me. Is Starmer’s new barmy army plans perhaps yet another dangerous iteration of the socially destructive expansion of an out of control military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us all against all those decades ago ?
I admit this feels like conspiracy theory to me.
There’s a lot more to it than that.
The flip response is he is at war with the electorate, having promised change in his election campaign a year ago, his changes have Ben rightward, implementing a cruel neo-liberal agenda.
In national defence, his and Reeves’ decision-without any consultation with his party, or even his MPs, MSPs or Welsh Senate members, to bae economic growth on the military production sector is disastrous-not to mention immoral -decision. Once the production factories for high tech weaponry are built, no doubt apart from the MoD, they will seek customers abroad, and a proliferation of arms sales will ensue.
Meantime, the cost of”modernisation” of the nuclear WMD programme is conservatively estimated at £100 billion; that is on top of the £205 billion to replace Trident submarines. If only there was money for reforming and funding social care, re-energising the NHS and for environmental protection and enhancement….
Thankyou for raising this, i know there are strong feelings when it comes to how far you are prepared to go to support an allegedly corrupt non eu, non nato country and the escalated war mongering now associated with it, so i won’t go there. What does infuriate me is how these so called politicians keep using social media and the media for that matter as some form of message wall to scribble their gang tags and threats. It’s interesting how many journalists have now identified that conflict is a great distraction when it comes to dealing with problems of the economy.
The prevailing posture of military buildup and economic sanctions between the West and Russia may deter immediate aggression, but it does little to address the root causes of tension or build a path toward peaceful coexistence. Drawing on lessons from past peacebuilding successes such as post–Cold War détente and the Northern Ireland peace process, there needs to be a structured approach for de-escalating the wider standoff with Russia.
Rather than defining Russia solely as a threat, Western leaders should work towards committing to a future framework of European–Eurasian security in which Russia is a partner rather than an adversary, to build mutual security, economic interdependence and respect for sovereignty. And remove entirely any pretext for conflict in Ukraine. This echoes the post-WWII vision that underpinned the Helsinki Accords in 1975 and, more recently, aspects of the original mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe .
Building on the Cold War experience, we should then open and expand diplomatic channels, including military-to-military contacts, joint climate initiatives, and nuclear arms control forums.
Engagement needs to go beyond political leaders, involving academics, NGOs, retired diplomats, and business leaders to build informal trust and float bold proposals, to humanise relationships.
Both sides should then discuss how to take the tension out of military exercises and deployments.
Gradual integration of Russia into European economic and cultural life (conditional on clear progress) could mirror the process that brought post-Franco Spain and post-communist Eastern Europe into the EU framework.
This can begin to be delivered through a long-term framework agreement – say 10 years – with measurable milestones: reduction in sanctions in exchange for verified military restraint; joint energy and infrastructure projects; and educational and scientific cooperation.
This is a practical vision, not a fantasy, and it’s what we should demand from our Prime Minister .
There are so many issues here!
Are we under threat? Yes.
Are we prepared? No.
What is/are the threats we face?
That’s a good question.
I’m reasonably sure that conscription, tanks, aircraft carriers, special forces, stealth bombers, and long range, tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons won’t help though. Anti-missile systems could merit more attention. Intelligence is always useful, but seemingly in short supply, especially in politicians.
First and foremost – the global climate catastrophe. The military make this far worse and we don’t even measure it.
Cyber attacks on industry and finance? Happening every day to all the major institutions. Latest – the Co-Op financial services. Effective defence? Doesn’t seem to be working.
Invasion? I don’t think so, not since 1940-1941.
Terrorism? Possibly – from far right whites, and, if we continue to be complicit in genocide, from those who are understanably angry about that. May involve (small locally launched) drone attacks against a multiplicity of soft targets. Currently seems to involve motor cars.
Destruction of essential services? The government has this well in hand, who needs enemies to do it? (Sewage, water supplies, transport infrastructure, food security, health services, education, social care, housing, energy infrastructure, all currently under threat from our own government).
Trump’s unpredictable destructive influence on most of the above? “A clear and present danger!” Where is Harrison Ford when you need him? Instead we get the MAGA Manchurian candidate.
It seems to me that the biggest identifiable threat to the lives and welfare of UK residents is to be found in Downing Street, Whitehall, Threadneedle Street, & Tufton Street.
In terms of foreign states, I would suggest Israel and Russia, under current leadership but not through traditional military means, more through their successful destruction of British political life. China I see as an economic rival, not a military threat unless we interfere with them in their territory.
A completely different set of questions arises if we consider, not attacks on our sovereign territory but our so-called “interests”, in other parts of the world.
Here we have our attempt at an excuse for those aircraft carriers, submarines and tanks. IMHO they are totally unfit for the job, and represent the wrong approach entirely. Diplomacy, soft power, aid, broadcasting, cultural exchange, generosity, co-operation, £ for £ will protect us far better than aircraft carriers with vibrating prop shafts sailing up snd down disputed Far East waters thousands of miles from home or submarines with someone else’s long range “MAD” nuclear missiles on board
But of course if the issue is NOT the protection of UK residents, NOR the protection of “our” so-called overseas interests, but the twin goals of getting Reform votes, and boosting armaments industry profits, at the expense of all of our futures, then spending on the wrong weapons to do the wrong job in the wrong place, makes perfect sense.
An afterthought. It’s probably more productive to think in terms of a convergent relationship rather than one dominated by Europe. But the processes I described would work just as effectively in this scenario.
We have been under Russian cyber attack for years. We have Russian fifth columnists in previous governments and around Brexit. We have been infiltrated by Israel. We are also engaged in infiltration by the American far right, and to my mind the latter two are a very present danger. This makes us a bigger target for attack by Russia, as we return to being Airbase 1, the forward US nuclear base as we were in the 80s.
When you’re in the pocket of the arms industry ………..
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/keir-starmer-labour-party-quadrature-donation-arms-companies-israel-war-gaza/
I think a little realism about our significance as a military target for China or Russia might be in order for Starmer. We were a *politically* significant target before Brexit because of our power position in the EU. We chose to vacate that position by executing Brexit.
We have neither the manpower capacity nor the logistic and armaments means, nor, I suspect, the public will, to wage war with any of the military titans of the planet.
If Starmer wants to save his skin, his best bet is to create some money and use it to do something effective to
> end poverty
> fund and repair the NHS
> address social care
> fix and modernise our public infrastructure
> protect our environment and people against the onslaught of climate disaster
If he did just those five things well, he would go down in our history alongside, or at least close to, the likes of Bevan. Provided he was actually doing them, not just saying he would do them and writing 10-year plans, we would almost certainly re-elect him in 2028 and he could safely ignore Farage, who would dwindle into obscurity in those circumstances.
But his preference appears to be to cosy up to Larry Fink and Peter Thiel to sell them our public sector and economy and government for a pound and spend his spare time making dubious public utterances.Good for Farage, bad for him and very bad for Britain.
I think Padraic Boocock makes some very good points. If only Starmer would listen to such sense rather than pursuing nonsense as he will today in his macho & belligerent Strategic “Offence” Review
I also agree with both you and Padraic. And then, if only we could somehow also harness the passion and energy expended globally by supporters of football and other high finance celebrity sports and focus it toward these socially beneficial goals; world changing.
Russian aggressive behaviour is a fact: Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Syria, Ukraine.
UK since 2000 has spent what it feels it can get away with on Defence given its alliance with US/Nato. Since 2010 there have been even more reductions.
We now look like we need to reverse this and expand our defence capability.
Measured response is what most of would like to see I’m sure.
Hopefully Starmer and his media pals will see things the same way.
I live in hope for all our sakes.
But Russia is not the only aggressor. We are, alongside the States, often.
Starmer announced this morning he is planning to spent £15 billion on upgrading Trident warheads. He also said he is putting the U.K. “ on a war footing ..” to be “ in a war fighting position.”
Somehow I don’t think this is the change people voted for last July.
The U.K. is legally bound as a signatory of, and depositary state for, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) Article 6 to negotiate in good faith and at an early date nuclear disarmament.
Modernising Trident warheads while asserting nuclear weapons ( of mass destruction) are the immutable cornerstone of national security does not suggest that Starmer intends to negotiate away U.K. nuclear weapons, in good faith or otherwise
Since I was a small boy I have been subjected to the propaganda that “the Russians are coming”. It never happened. The Soviets were not in a position not in a position financially or militarily to attack the West. There are those writing here who accuse the Russians of aggression against several countries. However, if you compare Russian aggression with American adventures it makes the Russians angels. Right from the end of WW2 millions have died at the hands of US invasions all over the globe. Governments which wanted to be independent have been overthrown by economic means or by force. Viscous di tators have been installed . The list is endless. Recent events reveal the danger to humanity is not Russia. It is the USA. Trump and Rubio openly threaten expansion. The US is totally responsible for the genocide in Palestine. This crime ranks as one of the worst in recorded history. Britain has supported these atrocities. UK ministers are guilty of war crimes . Even now our government refuses to say it is genocide. It is complicit in the crime. Rubio has now admitted the war in Ukraine is a proxy war between Russia and the USA. I firmly believe that is the case. So much evidence is there for all to see. Read Jeffrey Sachs for the truth. Starmer has all but declared war on Russia. There is no public support for this. Some commentators believe the UK is the number one target for Russian missiles. There are eleven American military bases in the UK. The majority are in Middle England where I live . A couple of hypersonic missiles travelling at many times the speed of sound are capable of reducing most of those bases to dust. Many civilians will be blown to bits in my home city in Buckinghamshire. The people of the UK are seconds away from destruction on the Doomsday Clock. The cause is not Russia . It is the madmen and women in the White House and always has been. Our people must take this seriously. Not sleep walk into oblivion .
Since we have given away control over all our strategic services through privatisation to foreign companies and governments wouldn’t it be relatively easy for malign foreign powers to take control of this country – perhaps without even firing a shot?
Yes