Something strange is happening to Britain’s foreign policy discourse. It’s not just that ideology is drifting from reality – a familiar enough feature of the post-Blair era – but that the performance of strategy now seems to matter more than the strategy itself. Nowhere is this clearer than in Keir Starmer’s attempt to assemble an appropriately Blairite-sounding ‘coalition of the willing’ to ‘keep the peace’ in Ukraine.
According to the Telegraph, this plan has been dismissed by senior military sources as “political theatre”, with one stating bluntly: “There’s no military sense in it.”
Another was more specific. “There are about 700,000 Russians in and around Ukraine and over a million Ukrainians under arms,” he noted, before asking, incredulously: “What is a 10,000-international force based in the west of the country over 400km from the frontline meant to do? What is the mission? What is its legitimacy? What are the rules of engagement? How it is commanded, supplied and housed? How long is it there for and why? No one knows.”
No one knows, no. But, heck, it sure sounds good – and Labour focus groups have no doubt indicated it’s playing well in the marginals.
Alas, the mistake both officials made was to assume this was ever to be assessed in operational terms. Because as another, decidedly on-message Army source goes on to explain, the coalition is less about actuality than about “galvanising political signalling of our enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security”.
Galvanising political signalling of our enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security. This is language unmoored from material reality; the grammar of geopolitics (“galvanising support for Ukraine’s security”) now detached from the logic of war by two participles, two adjectives, and three possessive constructions that leave us with… well, nothing, really.
There’s a striking resemblance here to the kind of ideological optimism that flourished in Stalin’s USSR, where facts were subordinated to slogans and failed agricultural plans were propped up by elaborate declarations of revolutionary intent. You could almost play a party game with this kind of rhetoric. Just replace the contemporary nouns, preserve the syntax and tone, and you’re back in a Lysenko-era press release.
So instead of this quote from the Telegraph:
A senior Army source said that while he was confident the military would be able to plan something to work within Mr Trump’s Easter deadline, it remained a “political and diplomatic question” over whatever plan the coalition of the willing came up with was actually executed. He said the coalition was more about “galvanising political signalling of our enduring commitment to Ukraine’s security”, and added that the discussions of the RAF providing air cover were the most “credible” part of talks within the coalition.
We get:
A senior Soviet scientist said that while he was confident model farms on the Soviet Creative Darwinism field laboratory could grow arable crops to work within Stalin’s Easter deadline, it remained a “political and diplomatic question” over whatever plan the politburo came up with for actually feeding the masses. He said the regime’s neo-Lamarckian rejection of Mendelian genetics was more about “galvanising proletarian signalling of our enduring commitment to communism”, and added that the discussions of the military providing food parcels in the event of famine was the most “credible” part of talks ongoing within the Central Committee.
In both cases, the narrative has to be in place before reality arrives – because it never will. And in the meantime, there are various audiences to impress: in Lysenko’s case, the Western world; in ours, NATO and the US.
Starmer may or may not believe that “galvanising political signalling” will do anything to silence the meat grinder. But in the meantime, it usefully positions him as a serious international statesman. Churchillian in affect, if not in effect.
Never before has the phrase ‘theatre of war’ seemed so apposite.
Dr Frederick Attenborough is the Executive Director of Communications and Research at the Free Speech Union.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What about Americans of Spanish heritage who believe they’re either male or female and don’t want their language mutilated by woketards¹? Are these also welcome?
¹ Latinx is a neologism invented by Democusans to avoid admitting that nouns are gendered in Spanish and that there are two kinds of these latinimals, a male (latino) and a female (latina) variant.
Talking of the US, I do chuckle when they go on about “Hispanics” as a discriminated against minority when what they mean is people from “Latin America” of mixed or full Central/South American Indigenous origin who happen to speak Spanish because the conquistadors imposed it, and they certainly don’t mean people of the conquistador race who are doing very nicely thank you- but they count as “Hispanic”
I think what they mean is People from Mexico or terrae incognitae even beyond that! and while the Spaniards reportedly mixed more with the Indian population than the Europeans who settled in Northern America, their descendents are still of European descent and have a culture mostly originating from here. They should really count as white but they speak neither English nor one of the European languages Americans usually ignore and hence, they’re global majority, too.
Unfortunately, I’ve long since stopped to find the incredible ignorance of these people amusing as they usually want to lecture all the world in an extremely patronizing way based on nothing but that.
Will, I appreciate that your job on the Sceptic brings you face to face day in, day out, with this sort of idiocy. But, that last sentence. “What haven’t the Conservatives banned this kind of nonsense yet.” No, just no.
Back in the days of Livejournal a friend wrote a post along the lines of “When Mrs Thatcher was first elected Keith Joseph undertook to repeal a tax law every year. What laws would you repeal? Here are some of mine.” Followed by the hunting ban, serious crime prevention orders, hate speech &c, &c, about a dozen reeled off without effort.
What happened in the comments thread was very interesting. Almost invariably, “I wouldn’t repeal laws, but I’d ban people who do this, that and the other.” You see this in “King for the Day” interviews as well “What would you do if you were King For the Day?” Almost always, “I’d make it illegal to do this.” “I’d ban these people.”
Banning seems to be a natural, human instinct. We should oppose it. Rather than banning adverts like the one above, we should repeal enough laws that it becomes natural to mock and ridicule them at every opportunity without fear of redress.
Excellent idea.
Totally agree as long as my tax £ is not being spent on it
Agree. They can say what they like as long as my tax is not spent on any of it. Mock it by all means.
What is required is a VACCINE. ——–What? Yes a vaccine for the Liberal Progressive Virus spreading all over the western world faster than a speeding bullet. If we take it and get the booster at Christmas we should see a reduction of symptoms whereby thoughts of social justice are eliminated, and equal justice returns.
I’m a black transgender lesbian in a wheel chair, although only when filling in forms, so should be guaranteed to get the job.
I feel like I face enough barriers and stigmatism as it is, do I also have to be an autistic drug dealer on top of everything else?
Clearly schizo too. That’s another plus
Have you ever robbed a bank? Or maybe even just mugged a little old lady?
Yes? you’re a shoo-in!
Gleefully they, and I, knew that I’d fucked with them at the interview being a very manly beardy Welsh lad…but they wouldn’t admit the flaw. It was a funny interview.
Needless to say, they didn’t offer me the position. It went to someone who Didn’t Earn It.
I am sorry to inform you that on this occasion your application has been unsuccessful.
May they find what they’re looking for.
Thats the best suggestion yet. They deserve to find someone that ticks all the boxes, except none of them will be working class.
This is insulting to group ‘working class’ with that collection. It’s doubly insulting as working-class is lumped with benefit-class as if there is some equivalence.
In addition the idea that someone identifies as deaf and/or disabled implies that they might not be but wish to say that they are.
(Why) haven’t the Conservatives banned this kind of nonsense yet?
Because they’re not actually conservative. That’s why..
If they’re successful in their search, the effects will be well-deserved.
(I did have a momentary thought that this might be a spoof?)
There’s a good pool of applicants who sit on the benches of Westminster or move in government circles. They probably meet most of the person specs for the job.
Was my idea as well: Criminal class could really be replaced with Civil servants and other Labour members welcome. We’d even take NHS managers if we must.
I think its a suitable job for the M.P.’s who are about to lose their seat at the next election, criminal class being at least one of the criteria they fulfill
I could simply self-identify with the above criteria
It’s Camden, what else would you expect?
It would have been easier simply to say straight white blokes and blokesses need not apply.
I can envision a Python-esque comedy sketch with a Theatre boss interviewing a prospective CE candidate:
“So, what do you think qualifies you for this position?”
“Well, I’ve never had any experience in the entertainment industry, but you see I’m just a poor immigrant crook who likes to cross-dress and call myself a woman. I have Attention Deficit Disorder if that helps. Oh yes, and I represent the Global Majority…can’t you tell?”.
“You start on Monday!”
Not really an issue for anyone wanting to apply (I wouldn’t) since it seems that anyone and his dog can identify as neurodiverse these days based on what I would consider to be normal variations in personality.
If whatever we’re supposed to call black/Asian people today is what they mean by global majority, then shouldn’t white people be considered a minority group that now needs protecting? Thought not.
Why does the state sponsor something which is obviously a communist ‘art project’? If there are really people interested in this people’s theatre, that is, people beyond the theatre people themselves, why don’t they pay for it?
This “Global Majority” phrase is an interesting piece of wokery. It seeks to widen the population of the UK to include the whole world, which is ofcourse how the open border leftists want everything to be. —A free for All. One planet, One Government, all of us happy and inclusive in our Progressive Utopia.
Yes, and where with a closed border UK the Ethnic Minority are prioritised, in an open border global ‘community’ we now become the ethnic minority, except the rules change so that our minority culture is subordinated within our own borders.
Perhaps related?
“These men are not incompetent or stupid. They are craft and brilliant. Consistency never has been a mark of stupidity if the diplomats who have mishandled our relations were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor. The fact that not one single mistake has fallen in our favor I would suggest that’s not incompetence that’s people working to a script.”
James Forrestal