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.
Two problems with the peacekeeper idea. No peace and precious few keepers.
Britain, France, the EU and now Denmark are discovering the hard way that defence spending is not an optional luxury.
Only credible defence forces give countries a seat at the top table.
Britain and France should either commit to a realistic defence spend (simply expressed as 5% of GDP) or give up their seats on the U.N. security council.
All the current posturing by Starmer is simply electioneering; a bad joke, very much like the man himself.
And yet the opportunity for “galvanising political signalling of our enduring commitment” rather closer to home could explain a great deal about the slavish persistence of the Net Zeroism cult.
To paraphrase: 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 climate change plans were propped up by elaborate declarations of environmental intent.
Russia would never allow peacekeeping forces from Nato countries.
It would have to be UN or from non-Nato countries and is just a pipe dream.
The picture shows the 2010 voting map of Ukraine and the territory in blue that Russia should accept into the Federation in any peace talks after Putin has given those regions referendums to join Russia.
This would restore equilibrium to the voting intentions of pre US led coup 2014 Ukraine.
Borders are just lines on a map which move from side to side and up and down with history.
It is not fictitious borders which define a country but the people.
If 97% of those people want to belong to the country next door because they have been persecuted and killed by a new fascist regime created by a US coup of 2014 then so be it.
Homes, family, farms and industry of millions of people cannot all move to the neighbouring, safe haven country of choice.
It is easier to move the lines on the map to accommodate the “will of the people”.
Laws and countries can be created by precedent.
Nato countries bombed and “invaded” Yugoslavia where new countries were created.
Balkan countries had referendums and declarations (just like Crimea and Donbass) where new countries were created with the agreement of Nato countries.
Nato countries “invaded” Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.
The UN is a tool of the US and Nato who bully other countries to agree to their sanctions and resolutions or bully them to disagree with the “will of the people” in countries which do not suit US foreign policy.
Russia’s special military operation was totally “justified” and similar to what Nato countries have done in the recent past.
Those living in the new territories in east Ukraine (probably now by a margin of 99.9%) still want to be part of Russia.
Russia will “liberate” all those areas of Ukraine where the people would prefer to be part of Russia than controlled by the Ukrainian Banderites, neoNazis, paramilitaries and ultranationalists who seized control of the country with help from the US.
The ICJ have NOT found Russia guilty of any crimes.
A collection of Barbie dolls would look more warlike. Even if the kaiserin of the EU wore a pickelhaube she wouldn’t have the armies of 1914.
Having promised Ukraine total victory and having told their own electorates that any negotiation with the Kremlin is appeasement, these leaders are stuck with the war. If peace broke out they would look discredited. In those circumstances the worse thing Putin could do to them is to agree a peace deal with the USA.
Whatever the UK gets from Starmer’s 100-year pact, the British and other participants in the ‘Reassurance Force’ would be there on the steppes until the end of time or the end of Russia, whichever came first. Most likely in strength enough to protect the Ukrainian government from the ultra-nationalists in the country in any civil war that might result from the latter not liking the terms of the peace. After the peace, the problem of the elections.
As far as the UK is concerned, the welfare state is a state of peace. If one third of the adult population have some sort of mental health condition, this isn’t a country that would ever be able to fight like the Ukrainians. Can any more be said of any of the EU member states?
Theatre of the Absurd. Over to Maestro Orwell…
“…The more a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it”.
Very simply, so even the Leftist knuckle-draggers with room temperature IQs can grasp it,
Historically, and legally, “peacekeepers” in a conflict zone
1) Must have the consent of both parties
2) Cannot contain soldiers of either belligernt
3) Only have legitimacy if approved by the UN Security Council
Russia has a veto at the UN Security Council, & has said repeatedly that NATO forces in Ukraine are unacceptable, whatever flag they serve under.
IIn fact the presence of NATO forces on Russia’s doorstep is 50% of why the invasion took place to start with; the other 50 being the plight of Rssians living in E. Ukraine at the hands of the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime.
I don’t understand why people think of defence in terms of %gdp. This is just an argument to give spivs more money. Surely the focus should be on the actual forces you need and in fact the industry and manpower you need to support it. So arguably the Royal Navy needs enough forces to plug the arctic gap from russian subs, and also to stop a breakout from the med, and defend say 3 convoy’s, be able to keep 4 ports open from mines and project an amphibious force, especially as we are an island. Most force protection in order to keep it going needs a rotation of 3. One on front line, one in training to take over and one in refit. Likewise if Britain wished to be able to contribute a fighting division as some kind of realistic deterrent expeditionary force, it would need to buy 3. So once you work out what you need you fund accordingly.
I certainly agree with your point of view with regards to GDP, on the other hand one should consider what defence forces are actually required and how, especially in view of modern warfare requirements (drones, etc.), to have sufficient flexibility to modernize forces when required.
Considering the country is both in massive debt and the days of the British Empire are well and truly over, we could question why we, firstly, should have any nuclear weapons: just what are we doing dragging nuclear missiles around in the world’s waters? Secondly, as opposed to “plugging the Arctic gap from Russian subs”, I would propose offering Russia our friendship instead: what on earth would we be doing fighting a major world power (and why are we doing so now)? I am also not sure what sort of “breakout from the Med” we should be stopping, nor why, unless you are referring to refugee dinghies, in which case I fully agree. In fact, I would regard our first priority as being to have sufficient fast boats to both cope with the country being invaded in this manner, as well as being able to protect our fishing boats, or simply be able to be at a particular location in our own waters within a certain time.
It would be a very interesting task to draw up completely new and up-to-date defence force requirements, whereby I personally would withdraw all support from NATO and would refuse to consider our troops performing offensive operations in foreign parts: other countries should sort out their own problems.
Nuclear weapons still count for something, even if it’s only not having to have such a large army. Removing so many capable patriots from industry would likely put a dent in any expected savings.
A more fundamental question is whether Britain is capable of organising anything like an Army and its supplies, let alone procuring weapons for the future.
It can’t even produce steel from Iron Ore any more, and our Politicians don’t appear to know why that is a problem. That’s the bigger worry.
I certainly agree with your last point but there is no sense in carting nuclear weapons around unless you are prepared to use them. So under what circumstances would UK fire a nuclear missile at a particular country? The repercussions would be extreme and possibly result in global destruction. When and why would we be prepared to risk that? And what gives us the right to impose such a catastrophic event on whomever we choose, or rather whomever Starmer or one of his successors chooses?
My fear would also be that, since we are dependent on USA for these weapons, we might be ordered by USA to fire them at some target. In the recent past we have obediently tied along on a number of ‘skirmishes’ at the behest of USA (or NATO, which is the same), which have only resulted in mass death and destruction in foreign countries: how did our country or our citizens benefit from these actions? Was there any benefit whatsoever?
UK is not under attack but our politicians are susceptible to serving others, primarily for egoistical reasons, whether they be the EU or USA, purely to satisfy the political whims or dislikes of those people in power, who rarely care one iota about how much ‘collateral damage’ they cause in the world, let alone the diverse costs of the actions to their citizens. I just think it is time we stopped pretending to act the role of world policeman.
But what would failing politicians like Two Tier, Macaroon, The Lying Oaf Johnson and Dementia Joe do without the distraction of a war in Ukraine?
They really do believe it from what I have heard. Not the armed forced obviously but the politcal class really believe that they can take on Russia alone, regardless of an American ‘back stop’. I can understand the desire with England being very small and how well we could do if we could take and control the natural resources of Russia. It is a very pleasing fantasy. This would never happen. If you read the memoirs of German soldiers traversing the steppe they make it clear that the immensity itself leads to a kind of mental illness that the European mind cannot cope with. And that is before you even get into the winter. I lived in Norway and there was a Royal Marines base near the town I lived in so the lads used to come into the town on a Friday night. They were notorious for starting fights but the point is that they couldn’t fight even scraps in icy conditions. If you have several inches of ice beneath you then grounding yourself in a fight is a very different matter. This conceit about the English being the kings of winter warfare is absurd people in Norway used to laugh at these squaddies on the floor shortly before they were picked up by the local police.
A “coalition of the willing” eh? I haven’t noticed Kneel jumping for the front lines so he’s not what anybody would call willing and our young men have fortunately shown no inclination to volunteer for slaughter. The young Calais Yacht Club members equally seem very reluctant to put their marching boots on despite the message this would send to the indigenous population of their adopted country. At least Kneel’s demise would be a wonderful blessing for these islands and would certainly save taxpayers a few bob but sadly he’s not got the bottle; talks a good fight but it ends there.
The message for Kneel – F R O.
Look at voting patterns in barracks towns. Nobody wants it. I saw a video of British ‘special forces’ communicating on mobile phones, obviously something that you should never do, and then they got blown to bits seconds later. You cannot win against the Russians even with full NATO support. You have already lost. No real British fighting man would ever fight alongside you. You are poison to the world order and to your own people in equal measure.
Just bear in mind that they know in Russia that most of the residents of our country are hostile to the ruling class but don’t know how to remove it. They talk about decapitaton a lot. But it is very hard work getting even an intelligent Englishman out of his trance.
It’s all just intended to distract the electorate from the clusterf..k Rachel-from-Accounts has made of the economy.
It allows Two-Tier to don a flak jacket; pretend to be a patriotic war-time Leader and at the same time hob-nob with his fellow WEF-approved puppeticians in the EU, playing the part (he thinks) of international Statesman.
His handlers really think it will recover some traditional working class votes. That’s how out-of-touch they are.