As a member of the Religious Society of the Friends of the Truth, or the Quakers as they are commonly called, I am inevitably wary about war. A predisposition towards peace is a fundamental Quaker commitment, which I share, whilst also being aware that, like all other guidance anyone can provide for human behaviour, this cannot be taken as an absolute. That is because conditions where war is inevitable, however catastrophic it might be, will occur, and then conflict is unavoidable. That is because foolish leaders will, on occasion, secure power and will, as a result, create situations where this outcome is necessary to restore order, whatever the cost to humankind.
Although I am not a regular attender at Quaker meetings these days, because a great deal has happened since the time when I was, my commitment to the Quaker principles remains, including a belief that finding peaceful solutions is always essential, and eventually the only way to resolve disputes.
Keir Starmer's comments yesterday, suggesting that we need to prepare for a situation where the whole of the UK might be at war, implying that we might face a situation where we could be invaded, were then of considerable concern to me.
In truth, I do not take him seriously or believe him, because I cannot see who it is that he thinks might invade Britain. The likelihood of that happening seems to me as likely as Iraq having weapons of mass destruction seemed to be to me before the UK invaded that country in 2003, which I always, and with good reason, doubted.
To be blunt, I am suggesting that Starmer is putting out some pretty crude propaganda for three reasons.
One is to outdo Farage on jingoism.
The second is to scare the country into accepting austerity, for which there is no good reason at all.
The third is to make him look like a strong leader whom we cannot let down by ever removing him from office.
There need not be the slightest bit of credible military intelligence to stop him from doing any of these things: the warmongering machine has, after all, never turned down an opportunity to spend more. As Dwight D Eisenhower, who understood that machine more than most, said in 1961 as he left the White House for the last time at the end of his term as President:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power is ever-present and must always be on guard against by our people.
I suggest that Starmer thinks of himself as being a part of that complex now: the dividing line between wise counsel in government and the military-industrial complex has, I suggest, disappeared. We should be on guard as a result, as Eisenhower suggested.
I agree we need to increase our defence, but that means:
- Effective sanctions on Russia and other aggressor countries.
- Massive improvements in anti-money laundering measures.
- The imposition of appropriate penalties on those breaking these laws, including UK nationals working in tax havens where abuse might take place and measures on UK entities with facilities in such places if it is shown they are linked to such abuses.
- A proper health strategy for the UK, because most young people are not fit enough to serve in our forces. Only major dietary reforms at a population level can solve that. Perhaps above all other changes, this might be the most important measure when it comes to defence procurement because without it, we will not have the staff that any armed forces might need.
- Serious infrastructure reform to reduce our vulnerability: renewable energy and a much reduced dependence on nuclear power are key to this.
- Better education so that we better understand the causes and consequences of war.
- Supply of better public services so that people think there is something worth defending in this country.
I could expand that list, but my point is straightforward: unless we think at this level, then planning new nuclear submarines that might be available in twelve years' time is irrelevant. I am suggesting that this Defence Review lacks intelligence, in other words, rather like the suggested threats of invasion do. The piece that is missing from Starmer's thinking is, in fact, the obvious one, which is that to win a war, you have to win the peace, and we are not doing that.
I could be wrong, but as a result I think Starmer is spreading complete misinformation on defence.
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!
I remember seeing a BBC propaganda piece from their Russia correspondent Steve Rosenberg in which he criticised Putin for claiming that the West were being militarily aggressive towards Russia as a way of shoring up support for his despotic regime. I wonder if he’ll do a follow-up piece about Starmer’s copycat efforts here?
“I wonder if he’ll do a follow-up piece about Starmer’s copycat efforts here? ” – you answered that in the 1st sentence – BBC propaganda.
There is a wider question here: the ability of individuals to use countries to wage war. Reading Wedgewoods “The Trial of Charles 1” relevant even now – the option NOT to wage war against his subjects was always a possibility – but blind adherance to “divine right” made him happy to have tens of thousands killed. In the same way, Putler (and Hitler) is happy to use barmy doctrines to justify war (divert attention & stay in power). Individuals making decisions that lead to, in the case of Russia , north of 1.4 million dead & wounded (Russia and Ukraine) to date. Or Israel & Net&yahoo (Gaza his “stay out of jail” card). In the case of Starmer, divert attention from hom-grown problems & spend money on stuff to fight 20th cent wars (sound familiar – it should). Pathetic.
Wars would be greatly reduced if there was no possibility of individuals having untramelled power. That has been the problem down through the ages (with some exceptions). USA, China, India, Russia,…. etc. Individuals that are very happy to resort to war, cos it ain’t them & their families doing the dying.
The best way to defend ourselves against any Russian aggression (and there almost certainly is some – cyberattacks for example, which Russia perceives as justified) is to talk to them. Starmer must know this, because it’s been the only thing that’s worked in recent decades. So he has another agenda, as you’ve said. But we must nevertheless keep pressing for talks. Again and again.
Starmer has it made it clear to me that he is a depraved character. He is too prepared to be pushed along by others with agendas and be rewarded for it.
He should have arrived in his job ready to wage war on the effects of Tory rule since 2010.
Instead he now wants to create real wars. Well, as you point out, war costs money and apparently there isn’t any.
The person I saw interviewed on C4 news last night was a confection, Starmer is a glasses wearing walnut whip, with no walnut, but plenty of the sickly, gooey, air filled fondant that has no substance – taste or nutrients wise – inside him.
All excellent points.
And in our infrastructure we need to own the land mass which feeds us and shelters us.
One of the oldest and current war machines is starvation. Small farms are being hounded out by the Brexshit deal, and sold to big Ag.
Another peace method is housing
‘Homes for Heroes’ stopped the revolution in Britain post WW1.
If Farage moves more towards national socialism, there’s no doubt he’s in, because none of the neoliberal apparatchik parties including SNP dare take on the rentiers and housing lobby.
Farage is doing clever politics, but since his whole raison d’être is to reduce the state to almost nothing other than a war machine you surely don’t believe that he would actually implement a programme of social housing / take on teh rentiers?
Of course I wouldn’t believe him!
But others would, or at least give a different liar a chance.
I think you are right re land. ‘Buy land, they’re not making it any more’ was an adage of my parents’ and grandparents’ generations. I think that Thatcher drew upon this with her ‘everyone a house owner’, which to my mind took on the mythic status of a civic right.
If the population were not materially and mentally crippled by the cost and insecurity of housing, it could afford to eat good food in appropriate quantity. Is anyone out there in a position to write an actual algorithm with feeds that would articulate the direct relationship between UPFs and cost of housing ….? Has anyone done this? Does it hold true for Europe? Why/not?
Starmer spreads misinformation about everything, as a matter of course.
I do understand there is a need to increase defence spending. I also understand there is a need to increase public investment in virtue all areas of public service in this country. I am certain there is an urgent need to take action to alleviate child poverty.
Why does Starmer need to wait for a budget in order to take action to alleviate child poverty, but can happily announce increased defence spending without any kind of fiscal event?
Maybe he’s planning to invade if Scotland secedes from the union?
Don’t give him any ideas.
What did you think of the BBC documentary on Is Britain Broke? I had several issues with it but would love to hear your thoughts.
There is a previous post on this issue.
Every day I wake up, look at the news, and regret once more voting Labour last year.
What concerns me is the extent to which our thinking is dominated by the outcome of WW2
Germany & Japan had to surrender unconditionally – which is as far as I am aware unheard of in ‘modern’ times, and they had enough understanding of how to behave nicely after the war ended to become good international citizens.
So far so good
BUT all other wars ended with a negotiated settlement – look at WW1 Napoleonic wars, etc AND (usually) between Western European powers OR in the case of the US Civil War & Japan at the end of WW2 nations who either shared or understood those values.
Now I am simply making this as an observation but trying to impose peace in Iraq, Afghanistan etc hasnt gone well has it. By comparison we were able to negotiate a peace (of sorts) in Northern Ireland so I suggest that culture must play a significant part.
So while we need sufficient military resources to make overt aggressive action against the UK & its allies risky enough to deter Russia – and possibly Trump what I suggest we do need is the skills to understand the rest of the world, in particular the bits that might cause us trouble OR who are so important that we need to get a handle on how they see things (China?) so we can either not get into trouble in the first place or smooth over any differences we have with them.
Oh and yes what would that now long gone generations of Soldiers who served in the North West Frontier have said about invading Afghanistan? I suggest ‘Dont’ but we forgot it
A thought provoking post.
Whilst “If you want peace, prepare for war” is true, the preparations don’t have to be, and should not be, purely military! We certainly need a more robust, and therefore decentralised, infrastructure where this is possible. It would be much harder for Putin to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure were it more decentralised.
You mention reducing reliance on nuclear energy and I very much agree. Nuclear energy (and I’d include fusion in this if it ever comes on line) is often touted as a “baseload/backup” for renewable energy “when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing”. This sounds reasonable except …. If you have sufficient nuclear capacity to back up renewable energy then you might as well use it all the time, there would be no need for renewable and no economic case for it if government insisted on building nuclear. Each, expensive, highly centralised, and therefore vulnerable, nuclear reactor that is built reduces the economic case for renewables. Instead we need decentralised renewables with storage. Energy storage is eminently achievable, economically, as discussed here previously, e.g. via liquid air energy storage.
The thing with solar renewable is that, if every, or at least most, homes had solar panels and storage, the whole energy system would be highly decentralised and therefore not vulnerable to attack by an aggressor. Wind power, with associated storage, which does not have to be colocated, is also decentralised but to a lesser extent.
A decentralised energy infrastructure would have been difficult, because each home needs its own connected controller, even a decade or two ago. But now, with current technology it is eminently possible.
So green energy, as well as being environmentally beneficial, is also a defence against aggression. Two things for the price of one (though actually more likely a cost saving). What’s not to like?
I can’t help wondering why governments are obsessed with nuclear power given that it is expensive and vulnerable. Perhaps they are simply ignorant that renewable is a better option (ignorance seems likely given their obvious ignorance of fundamental economics). But perhaps it’s that they like centralised systems which are easier for them to control. I really hope it’s not the latter, I fear it may be.
Thanks
Rather than ignorance I’d suggest they re in hock to the nuclear lobby and want nuclear for its contribution to nuclear war heads etc. The nuclear industry have been fighting against renewables for decades and our politicans have been listening for far too long.
The other issue with decentralised is that it’s hard for monopolies to make massive profits if most houses are generating a significant % of thier own energy needs.
Even with the small number of solar panels that I have I’m generating and exporting enough electricity to more than cover all my gas and electricity costs and being paid cash for the additional exporting.
Tim Kent wonders why the (UK) Government are so obsessed by nuclear. It is a very good question which requires a detailed response. This comment section is not the appropriate place for such a complex explanation: My doctoral thesis entitled “Nuclear Powers” ( Open University, 1986) provides an integrated political-sociological-historical answer in 120,000 words plus two annexes. In summary: nuclear power was born of the scientific research that created the nuclear weapon( although in the U.K. civilian use of atomic energy in a sort of combined heat and power system preceded bomb research in the 1940s)
This meant that atomic energy research and development was “born secret”, and as civilian applications of splitting the atom were developed in what became the four first big nuclear powers (US, UK, Soviet Union, France and later China) all developed highly centralised atomic bureaucracies that managed the atom ( US Atomic Energy Commission, UK Atomic Energy Authority, in USSR they prosaically called the equivalent ‘The Ministry of Medium Sized Machines’, in France the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique). It was the secretive, elitist, centralised political culture that led to nuclear being feted by the political elite. Fast forward, we now have the Strategic Defence Review consolidating the mutual interdependency of the civil/commercial and military nuclear infrastructures.The UK national nuclear skills programme is tooling up forvovrrlappingbexpansions in both sectors, 12 new RollsRoyce nuclear powered submarines using compact small modular reactors (SMRs) for propulsion; and next week’s Spending Review the press are reporting a fleet of land based SMRs will go ahead, almost certainly using R.R. reactors. The merger of the civil and military parallel streams will be completed: they looked from man to pig, and pig to man and….
Many Thanks for your comments @Dr DavidLowry. 🙂
Yes indeed – glad to know your thesis confirms my long held thought that military and civil nuclear power are mutually sustaining aspects of a single programme.
Surely ‘the obsession’ with nuclear is the ultimate defining feature of ‘Britain’s self identification as a ‘great power’?
The powers that be in the UK would not tolerate any would-be leader who hesitated in answering the question ‘would you press the button’?
As long ago as 2013 at the Labour conference in Brighton – ex ministers were hosting fringe events to promote more nuclear. If nuclear power is so good – let the investors get on with it – but we all know it is uninsureable, and the most expensive form of power generation – and leaves centuries of further expense in waste clear up.. So obviously we have to squander £40bn on Sizewell and more billions on pretending to develop SMR’s – what’s wrong with us?
A country can’t have military defense without economic security. Roosevelt understood that. Defense spending mobilises a work force. Where is that coming from? I don’t believe we have enough social stability to answer the demand.
We haven’t
LESSONS WE CAN APPLY
War is a continuation of policy by other means. So said Clausewitz.
My reading of history post 1945 is that the political leadership of the US often didn’t appreciate that dictum. The US has a massive intelligence base and some excellent analysts but the White House under different Presidents, often disregarded their intelligence for political reasons. Vietnam, the intervention in Iraq and the consequences of almost unconditional support for Israel being three examples. There was a too easy reliance on military force to achieve political aims.
Jared Kushner’s ‘peace plan’ and the Abraham Accords were and are, more about domestic politics than addressing the real world. Morocco signed up to the Accords in return for the US recognising their claim to the Western Sahara territory-against the wishes of the EU and African Union. Morocco then put out a statement that they supported the aim of Palestinians to have their own state!
A possible exception was the second Reagan term when with Thatcher, Kohl and Mitterand, the West was able to do a deal with Gorbachev and end the Cold War.
I see hope in the more active role of the UN and the ICJ in addressing the Palestinian situation though much more needs to be done. The voice of the Global South will not be ignored.
Any defence strategy needs understanding of what is really going on on the NATO border and the intentions and motivations of the Russian leadership. How that translates into threats and how they can be countered. And not just them. IMHO we have pushed Iran into an opposing camp when it might been avoided.
On social media and the Telegraph (which I rarely read) many of the comments are about the ‘boats’ bringing refugees and rejection of closer European links.
On the other wing we see suggestions that the West is war mongering and demonising Russia. There is an understandable wish for less military spending and better international relations. That doesn’t mean we can ignore what happened in Georgia 2008, Crimea and Donbas 2014 and the invasion of 2022.
I returned to the Cold War issues during lockdown and was surprised how far all European defences forces had been reduced. The idea that the West posed a military threat to Russia is difficult to believe but it is an idea Putin has pushed and I find it has a wide acceptance.
I must admin I didn’t think then, 2022, Russia would invade Ukraine. We have to revise our assumptions from time to time.
My opinion is that any defence policy has to be rooted in a coherent foreign policy based on present realities. Not WW2 scenarios of invasion or notions that it is all about using drones.
Elements of that must be a QE type funding-and for climate change, the real existential threat.
Close co-operation with Europe. Good bye Boris’ post-Brexit ‘Global Britain.’
Hopefully with American co-operation but without it if need be.
A redeployment of forces.
Recognising that the main threat to the Putin regime is the values and practices of Europe. Thus much of what you advocate for civil society and the method of funding it is also essential.
What ended the Cold War was that Europe was too strong to be attacked and the people of the East lost the will to support the dictatorships. Remember the Velvet Revolution and the way Communism ended in the USSR. Perhaps those are lessons we can apply?
Thank for this
Even on its own terms the review is a failure.
If you are worried about a new war then you need to prepare to fight a 21st century war not continue with obsolete cold war strategy.
The war in Ukraine is showing how drones costing only hundreds can destroy million or even billion pound assets. The landscape is evolving fast, with autonomous drones and optical fiber ones.
Investing in Hunter submarines only makes sense if you have a naval target. Russia has very little serviceable naval hardware.
So it’s a review that’s neither strategic or for our defense.
However as you say, the military industrial complex, is very geared up to produce profitable large scale hardware. They can’t make as much on drones or even old fashioned artillery. So we get obscene money wasted on things that wouldn’t last five minutes if we ever did go to war.
I agree with all of that.
It’s as if the authors of the report have a product to sell, and a truly gullible buyer
In about 1955 I read that an American general had said, ‘I become more and more convinced that if you prepare for war – you get it!
I would like Russian and British people Britons to have a decent standard of living.
i would like advertising everywhere to be much more limited with independent statutory regulation.
For example, cartoons on food packaging – aiming to get children addicted – should be forbidden by a regulatory body whose members should have no connection with the food industry.
I doubt if anybody believes Britain is in danger of invasion, or war anywhere within a thousand miles of Britain. I suspect what they mean is ‘British interests’ thousands of miles away, and I suspect that by ‘British interests’ they mean commercial interests. They certainly don’t seem very interested in thousands of children dying in Gaza.
Much to agree with
Ah, Gaza. The other proxy war we are actively supporting (and passively supporting by turning a blind eye to its blatant atrocities). Nothing better exposes our bad faith and hypocrisy.
I ask readers to watch Ch4 News last night, about 8mins in; Gary Gibbon interviewing Starmer in Glasgow. Starmer is completely incoherent; there is no other feasible description. Our governments no longer bother making any sense as all.
The problem Starmer has, is that after Conservative and Labour have run down defence for twenty years to the point of collapse, suddenly they are claiming the barbarian is at the gate, full-scale warfare on our doorstep, and we need emergency action now. This is a sombre backs-to-the-wall message, because defence has politically been jettisoned by Parliament and there is a huge task ahead. But the ‘plan’ is to spend 2.5% of GDP now, rising to 3% at some vague future date; and that doesn’t meet the scale of the threat that he claims we are facing now. NATO wants 5%. Everybody in the defence world, and even the journalists questioning him knows the financing doesn’t match the so-called ‘plan’, and the timescale simply doesn’t work. This is obvious.
If you are facing war (and that doesn’t simply mean invasion, it includes critical cable cutting, cyber attacks, undermining the economy, or infiltrating or disrupting institutions and communications; requiring big new investment, and new thinking about warfare), you spend the money. You never, ever say we haven’t the money to defend ourselves. You just spend it. Because governments can spend it; and they do. If the threat is what Starmer says it is, he must spend it. No excuses. At the end of WWII the Debt/GDP ratio was 250%. Spending money and taxing it is why governments have all the power.
Starmer is in a complete mess now, because he can’t say he will spend what is needed; and he can’t say it because he is depriving people of support, from pensioners, to parents with three children, to people wronged over the blood scandal, or the Post Office scandal, or the building regulations scandal – all because he has claimed endlessly “we do not have the money”. If he finds all the money needed, suddenly, and without limit for defence, some serious questions will be asked about the serious deprivation being meted out to millions of people who are being refused help because there is no money.
Here is the scale of the confusion on C4 News (there is some editing below, and paraphrasing but the words are not manipulated; the quotes, I hope are accurate):
Gibbon: You say it is urgent, but you “hope” to spend 3%, “subject to economic conditions”. There is a mismatch between the threat and the rhetoric. The spend will be subject to the OBR.
Starmer: “We have already seen a big increase since the Cold War… from a hollowed out defence. We are ramping up; NATO first; we never fight alone; a defence dividend… jobs here and throughout Britain”
Gibbon: Jobs. What we are talking about is a peace dividend and a defence dividend; both graphs (spend) going up. That is fantasy economics, isn’t it?
Starmer: Defence dividend is important, as we spend more money, there will be more well-paid jobs
Gibbon: A military-industrial dividend we are all going to live on. Keynesianism?
Starmer: “Yes”. 400.000 well paid jobs, supply chains…
Gibbon: We are going to have both (peace and defence dividend)? And that is not fantasy economics?
Starmer: “No. We are going to grow the economy…”
Gibbon: What if the choice is between benefits. and.. are you going to be pushed around on defence?
Starmer: We had to take tough decisions on pensions and WFA … but stabilised economy….growth higher ….interest rate cuts….we can look again at WFA…
Gibbon: Farage …. barbarians at the gate at home?
Starmer: Put that in the context of this discussion…Farage has put out tens of billions of pounds of spending without saying where the money is coming from…Liz Truss blowing up our economy…first duty of our country is to keep our country safe.
So, it is and isn’t Keynesianism. He is and isn’t going to have a defence dividend. He is and isn’t going to have a peace dividend. And the contradictions aren’t contradictions. It is quite simple. The only thing that survives this incoherence intact is the Fiscal Rules. Everything can go, except the fiscal rules. That is Starmer’s message. But in spite of this he cares about everyone, and Britain has sufficient defence, even when it clearly hasn’t. We are being fed the absurd tropes of neoliberal excess, with a straight face, and as if it made any sense at all. It is incoherent.
And for the Scots impressed by the 400,000 jobs he claims? 25,000 are in Scotland, he proudly claims. Think about it. 25,000 as a percentage of 400,000 jobs is 6.25%. Scotland has 8.1% of the UK population. Under the Union, this once proud engineering nation is not just being de-industrialised, it is slowly and surely being filleted; and moved south. All that remains is the stuff that cannot literally be removed (which is the only reason we have held on to the renewables industry). The house is slowly being cleared; as if Scotland was dead already.
It was a very good interview.
He completely skewered Starmer.
Thank you and well said, John.
John S Warren: “Under the Union, this once proud engineering nation is not just being de-industrialised, it is slowly and surely being filleted; and moved south.”
When one goes around Mauritius, one notices not just place names of Scottish origin (Auchendrane, Elgin, Holyrood, Monymusk etc.) and presbyterian churches, but bits of sugar milling and shipbuilding equipment bearing the names of long defunct Scottish manufacturers and merchants, too. Some Mauritian oligarchs are of Scottish origin, Taylor and Tennant.
I was thinking of a recent comment by John when recently discussing Mauritian independence with my parents. “No former colony has regretted independence from the UK.” This descendant of Farquhars thinks Scotland won’t either and has to believe in itself.
No one has ever asked to come back.
The Turks & Caicos bob in and out of direct control, but let’s be clear, they have never really left.
Empire and Union were de facto the same thing for Scotland; the struggle has been to disentangle the Gordian knot of commitments the Scots determinedly made of it. Incidentally, the history of the Union in Scotlands needs some serious rewriting. The emphasis, for too long (Presbyterianism and dynastic) has not looked closely enough at the influence of Darien (originally a joint venture with the City of London competitors to the East India Company, and not to Darien, or anywhere near America – indeed Mauritius, although not first on the list, was far more likely than the improbable Darien Isthmus), and William III’s betrayal of the Scottish Parliament (for England’s Parliament), that scuppered the City IPO.
There was no recovery for the Scottish Parliament with that blatant and decisive betrayal by the Crown. You can’t ride two horses, when they decide to run off in different directions. The rest is history (that needs rewritten.)
“The UK will be forced to agree this month to increase defence spending to 3.5% of national income within a decade as part of a NATO push to rearm and keep the US on side, Sky News understands.”
In the C4 News interview with Gary Gibbon, Starmer said that ‘we never fight alone’; that is deliberately obfuscating language (it begs the question who we require), because he can’t answer the question Gibbon didn’t ask: does that mean we will not spend 3.5%, and will not fight if the US doesn’t accept less than 3.5%, and leaves Europe to fend for itself? Let us be clear, the EU and the defence community are forming policy on the basis that you cannot plan reliably on the US being there. Starmer is an outlier.
We are in a complete mess, with a political culture (I fear including Whitehall itself and not just our abject political class) that is dysfunctional and not competent to govern. When you are constantly being ‘played’, and made to look weak, foolish and too biddable, you need finally to stop ‘playing the game’.
Before you threaten or even start a war we must understand the so called enemy. There seems to be far to much bull shit and very little verifiable threats. We must understand the current tensions and the threats perceived by Russia.
I believe the tensions are being generated by the USA because Russia and China are stopping the USA from dominating the whole planet.
In the late 80’s my parents & I – separately visited what then was the USSR
I visited the Piskarev Memorial Cemetery in what was then Leningrad and saw the tank barriers on the motorway outside Moscow which marked the furthest point reached by the Germans in WW2
My fathers comment – he was a WW2 veteran that there were a lot more old women than old men and that he could weep for what they had been through.
I am sure similar points could be made about China and of course mainland Europe. Finland and Poland anyone?
The challenge for Britain & the USA is to understand this
I believe there needs to be structured ways to get ordinary citizens involved in building peace, from a widespread range of backgrounds in Russia and across Europe. As happened in Northern Ireland, South Africa and in a number of other conflicts. To build mutual understanding and a vision for a positive, converging future. In the absence of that formal structure, I wonder, if Richard will allow, what everyone who contributes to this site would like that vision to be.
Feel free….
“a vision for a positive, converging future”
Surely it’s got to be recognising that climate change is the real (and existential) threat we ALL face, and that our only hope lies in moving past the traditional notions of “friend” and “foe” that Starmer seems wedded to.
Agree almost entirely Richard. At the end of the nineties as ‘we’ – the West were helping the oligarchs to loot Russia’s assets and millions were starving and Putin was a pet , there was a G8, and there was talk of Russia joining NATO.
But there was no way the military industrial complex would tolerate having Russia as a friend instead of a readily available enemy.
Starmer’s SDR may just be a reroll of the last few reviews which have had disastrous procurement results – subs, tanks , carriers and stuff that cost billions more than they should and still don.t work
Its so good for Rolls Royce and BAE . No chance that any UK govt would dispense with nuclear – the SMR’s they are pretending will generate future electricity are an adaptation of nuclear sub reactors. Nuclear warheads and nuclear reactors are part of the same programme, and of course the are our ‘great power’ signifier.
As a Guardian piece today says – preparing for war often produces war. Richard Sackwa’s ‘the lost peace’ shows what we should have done post cold war . There is no interest in the West to ask – will Russia always be an enemy – how can we change that ?
Funnily enough there is a clue in Trump’s offer of a golden future for Russia – if it sets up economic deals with the US. We have to keep talking to them and to not only ‘deter’ but offer something positive.
I
Much to agree with
Apologies for delay
Thank you, Andrew.
I worked for HSBC from 1999 – 2006, including China, Russia and, in the middle of the pair, Kazakhstan. Western views of these countries and their histories is ill informed and dangerous.
Readers may be interested in these for starters:
Putin’s speech to the Munich conference of 2007: https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2007/02/362269.html.
Former US envoy and CIA head Bill Burns’ memo about NATO expansion towards Russia: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html.
More on NATO expansionism: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion#:~:text=Burns%2C%20now%20CIA%20Director%2C%20was%20US%20Ambassador%20to,not%20just%20Putin%2C%20was%20dead-set%20against%20NATO%20enlargement.
It is true that there is much that is ill-informed and dangerous about the West’s attitude to Russia. At the end of the cold war, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, some very bad policies were pursued. Russia will never change its attitude to Ukraine, wish to take it all back; and considers it a Nazi state. The history of this is an insoluble problem. All of that can be true, without it solving the problem that Russia operates in a way that is vary dangerous, and requires serious defence. You need not look at the Ukraine, or Russia’s attitude to countries on its borders (borders it treats with impunity). Most of its most alarmed and determined opponents are on its borders. Too many were forced members of the Warsaw Pact, and will never forget it.
Just look at how Russia treats its own people. Its political opponents. Typically soon dead. Its own troops at war. Putin laid his marker down for everything he has done round the world, from Ukraine to Syria; in Grozny, 1999-2000.
Putin laid Grozny waste. Scipio Africanus left more of Carthage standing. I suggest reading Olga Oliker. ‘Russia’s Chechen Wars 1994-2000: Lessons from Urban Combat’, Rand Corporation, (2001). From Ch.3, ‘Return to Grozny, 1999-2000’ (‘The End Game’, p73-74): .this extract is from February, 2000 in the rubble of the city, as the Russian’s cleaned out the remaining Chechens: “The asymmetric nature of the Russo-Chechen conflict helps shed light on the events of early February 2000. After weeks of heavy fighting in Grozny, on the morning of February 2 rebel forces were reported to be fleeing in droves and dying in Russian minefields.
Russian officials initially responded with distrust to reports of both rebel withdrawal and deaths and injuries among the guerrilla’s leadership. Presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky voiced the general opinion: ‘If the guerrillas had left Grozny, there wouldn’t besuch fierce fighting at the cannery, the president’s palace, and in the Zavodsky district.’ Several suggested that it was a Chechen trick or disinformation of some sort. Within days, however, the story changed. Now Russian officials spoke of a well-planned operation orchestrated by the FSB and others, an operation code-named ‘Wolf Hunt.’ An FSB agent, it appeared, had offered the beleaguered rebels a way out of Grozny in exchange for $100,000. Radio transmissions then convinced the guerrillas that Russian forces were moving from the west to the south, and a small group of rebels was allowed to successfully leave the city by the designated path. Then, when the bulk of the rebel force prepared to follow, they found that the road was mined, that Russian soldiers were everywhere, and that dozens of helicopters were shooting at them from the sky. The Russians claimed that the rebels lost up to 1,700 personnel.”.
This is how Russia deals in politics with its own people; not for the first time, but it set the tone and means of Putin’s Russia, and it doesn’t seem to have changed. There are no easily, balanced answers. Make your own assessment, and draw your own conclusions.
Wholly agree that Starmer is spreading complete misinformation about defence. I thought the Guardian article today by Karen Bell, professor of social and environmental justice at the University of Glasgow: “This is what Britain really needs to defend itself – and it doesn’t include spending billions on arms” captures your point well as well as reflecting better political (and economic) choices that could be made.
Shame we don’t have politicians thinking this way. Also, it is disturbing how misinformed (deliberately and maliciously) we are. You mentioned Panorama (which I used to be a great fan of) but I also noted on the (Scottish) news last night about the deliberate and malicious mis-representation by Deform regarding Anas Sarwar and the fact that a member of the public mentioned that he had voted for Deform in the upcoming by-elections. When it was pointed out to him that it was deliberately wrong and intended to misinform he recognised that his basis for voting Deform was wholly flawed…however, he had already submitted his postal vote.
In short, I think we need to hold our politicians and media more to account when they misinform…the consequences could be severe.
PS I will write to the BBC to complain about the lack of accuracy in the Panorama programme.
Thanks
Hello Richard. I just want to check my own accounting skills because it seems a big error was made in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/03/rachel-reeves-think-big-labour-battle-ready-britain-defence-fund
Toynbee says: “Here’s a truly difficult example: Miller would end VAT reliefs for food, books and children’s clothes, which benefit the rich as they spend most. That brings in a stonking £100bn.”
And cites this IFS report: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-and-public-finances-fundamentals
The £100bn in the Guardian seems to have come from the IFS’s £100bn figure: “£64 billion from zero and reduced rates and £33 billion from exemptions”
Toynbee has attributed the total VAT relief cost figure (£100bn) to just “food, books and children’s clothes”. Checking the gov.uk’s tax relief statistics, I think it should actually be £25bn. non-structural VAT relief on food is £20.8, clothing £2.2 and books £1.9.
Seems to be a big error in reading comprehension, unless I’m mistaken.
It is a massive error
And ignores the impact
Well, that is “hold your nose and vote blue Labour” Toynbee for you.
Just a short note on the (il)logic of Starmer’s assertion he is putting the U.K. on a “war-footing” because the “world has changed” with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russia has been adventurist for several decades: from memory as the Soviet Union it invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, & Afghanistan and as Russia it invaded Georgia and conducted an internal war in Chechnya and Ossetia. The Russian military have also been active in Syria, but with the agreement of its then President Assad.
It has also been involved in proxy wars with the United States in several African countries.
The United States, meantime, according to data compiled by international public intellectual Noam Chomsky, has invaded or militarily overthrown the governments of over 50 countries since 1945.
But Washington DC is our friend( at least until the second Trump presidency!) while Moscow is our alien enemy.
All change!!
NATO says 3.5%.
Trump says so.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/03/nato-defence-spending-uk-trump
McSweeney is busy checking the figures as I write (no, not financial figures, RED WALL VOTING FIGURES, pay attention at the back please).
Fiscal rules are wobbling, as the cast iron they relied on had to be melted down to make nuclear submarines.
When the new world leader came into power in January in the USA he stated that NATO must increase defence spending to 5% of each countries GDP. What he really demanded was that all members of NATO must allocate 5% of their GDP to procure military hardware from the great USA.
Think this vdeo from Yanis Varoufakis very pertinent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMCt_ctaeI
Thanks for link.
YF succinctly captures Labour’s idiocy & the amorality and the inevitable destructiveness of the predominant ideology
You are not wrong.
I have followed and contributed to this multi-issues blog for several years, and am ever impressed by the collective knowledge – and indeed wisdom- of the participants. I think the thread following Richard’s original blog on Starmer’s “defence” perspective has been one of the best both for the empirical information shared and the different perspectives offered. Ever educative and stimulating.
And here is an alternative: The Alternative Defence Review. Published by CND.
As the preamble mentions. It was proposed by CND in response to the RMT union’s decision to ‘… campaign with other trade unions and peace organisations to convene a labour and peace movement summit to work out the basis of a new foreign policy with the promotion of peace and social justice at its heart’. The Alternative Defence Review is intended to be a contribution towards this.
Some readers will recognise one or two names from the extensive list of contributors. Not least Paul Rodgers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies, University of Bradford
It can be downloaded here:
https://cnduk.org/adr/
I will give it a read.
Professor Paul Rodgers just mentioned above argues that hard militarism and the ‘national security’ measures advocated by Starmer lead to more and more insecurity. So more military spending does not necessarily lead to building real human security, but to worsening insecurity. This is what he calls the insecurity trap, for example where Israel is stuck in a doom loop and digging deeper. Moreover, hard militarism merely screws the lid down, and revolt from the margins becomes inevitable. The real threats we face such as climate chaos, massive inequality and the self interest of the military-research-industrial-government complexes around the planet are not addressed by Starmer, let alone recognised.