The Disaster of British Troops in the Ukraine, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's readiness to deploy troops "in harm's way" in Ukraine, as reported in the Breitbart article "Starmer Says 'Ready' to Deploy British Troops 'In Harm's Way' in Ukraine," would be a disaster for Britain, a reckless plunge into chaos:
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's reckless declaration to deploy British troops "in harm's way" in Ukraine, as trumpeted in his Daily Telegraph op-ed and dissected by Breitbart on February 17, 2025, threatens to drag Britain into a catastrophic quagmire. Framed as a noble stand against an "existential" Russian threat, this policy reeks of delusion and desperation, poised to wreak havoc on Britain's already fragile military, economy, and social fabric. Far from securing Europe, it could shatter Britain's standing and plunge its people into a nightmare of pointless sacrifice.
The military disaster looms largest. Britain's armed forces, gutted to a pitiful 73,000 active personnel, a shadow of Cold War strength, are a hollow shell, as Breitbart (March 4, 2025) and General Sir John McColl have warned. With defence spending languishing at a measly 2 percent of GDP, the army lacks tanks, modern aircraft, and even recruits to sustain a pub brawl, let alone a Ukrainian deployment. Starmer's vague reliance on U.S. "backing" is a fantasy—Trump's America, brokering its own Russia deal (ABC News, February 16, 2025), won't waste blood or treasure on Britain's folly. Social media users jeer at this as "sending boys with rusty rifles to face Putin's drones," a grim prophecy of slaughter against a nuclear-armed foe. The logistical nightmare, thousands of troops, years of occupation (The Times, March 16, 2025), would bleed Britain dry, leaving it defenceless at home.
Economically, this is a suicide pact. Britain's treasury, already buckling under Labour's looming cuts (Breitbart, March 4, 2025), can't fund a war theatre. The USDA's $1.25 billion bird flu cull pales next to the billions this would devour—equipment, transport, burials—while egg prices soar and taxes spike. Small businesses, reeling from post-Brexit woes, would collapse under the strain, and rural farmers—already battered by trade shifts—would see no relief as funds vanish into Ukraine's mire. Social media sentiment (e.g., March 15, 2025) rages at Starmer "starving Brits for Zelensky's ego," a betrayal of a nation teetering on recession.
Politically, it's a death knell for Starmer and Labour. Announcing this on the eve of a Paris summit—snubbed by U.S.-Russia talks (Guardian, February 16, 2025)—smacks of a desperate grab for relevance, not strategy. The article flags his hypocrisy: slashing defence at home, while posturing abroad. Reform UK's Rupert Lowe (Breitbart, March 4, 2025) demands parliamentary votes, but Starmer's silence suggests a dictator's gambit, alienating voters already livid over migrants and NHS waits (Telegraph polls, February 2025). Social media erupts with "No war for Ukraine" (March 2025), and a backlash could topple Labour, handing power to populists gleeful at Starmer's self-inflicted wound. Europe's tepid response, Germany and Poland balking (Reuters, February 16, 2025), leaves Britain isolated, a lone fool in a coalition of cowards.
Socially, this would fracture an already divided nation. Starmer's "deep responsibility" line rings hollow when troops, underpaid, overstretched, face Russian artillery for a cause most Brits don't grasp (NYT, February 16, 2025). Social posts scream "Not our fight," reflecting a public battered by economic gloom and cultural erosion, not clamouring for foreign graves. Morale, already low from years of neglect (BBC, February 2025), would crater as soldiers die in a frozen steppe, sparking protests and desertions. The article's hint at escalation, Russia's "provocation" retort (RT, February 2025), raises the spectre of nuclear retaliation, a doomsday shadow over Britain's cities.
Strategically, it's a blunder of epic proportions. Ukraine's nuclear deterrence or sanctions (Breitbart, February 17, 2025) could check Putin without British corpses, options Starmer ignores for macho posturing. Web sources (Telegraph, February 16, 2025) note Russia's oil woes; why not squeeze harder instead of bleeding troops? This isn't deterrence, it's bait, inviting Putin to test NATO's weakest link. Social media posts call it "Blair's Iraq 2.0," a legacy of ruin Starmer seems blind to chase. With Trump sidelining Europe, Britain's solo plunge could embolden Moscow, not restrain it.
Starmer's troop deployment fantasy is a disaster waiting to bury Britain. A depleted military, a broke economy, a fractured society, and a botched strategy spell ruin not heroism for a nation ill-equipped to play saviour. The Breitbart article exposes this as a reckless lurch, not a calculated stand, risking lives and stability for a fleeting headline. Like the bird flu frenzy, the cure, boots in Ukraine, promises a wreckage far worse than the threat, a grim lesson in hubris Britain can't afford.
"UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared his willingness to deploy British troops to Ukraine "in harm's way" to deter Russian aggression hours before he is set to join an 'emergency summit' on the matter in Paris on Monday.
The United States and Russia are meeting to discuss the Ukraine war in Saudi Arabia this week, but European leaders have not been invited to send delegations. Apparently prompted by being left behind in this regard, and likely too by the Trump White House's suggestion that European nations actually decide what they are actually capable of doing on Ukraine, European leaders are meeting in Paris today for an "emergency summit".
Upping the stakes for other attendees before the meeting began, the British Prime Minister threw his weight behind French President Emmanuel Macron's now long-floated plan to deploy European contingents directly to Ukraine to face down the Russians, saying he was now "ready" to deploy the British Army.
Announcing the policy change in an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph of London, UK PM Starmer wrote that the matters on the table are "existential for Europe as a whole" and that peace in Ukraine is only workable if Russia is sufficiently deterred from ever launching another invasion. Ukrainian President Zelensky also makes this a key demand of peace talks.
In a passage clearly meant for Washington after Trump's emissary to the European defence elite, Vice President JD Vance scorched the increasingly illiberal continent for failing to underwrite its own defence and fearing the opinions of its own voters while forcing mass migration for them, Starmer wrote as if a truism that: "Europe and the United States must continue to work closely together".
European nations must spend more on their defence spending to take on "a greater role in NATO", Starmer said, noting: "We have talked about it for too long – and President Trump is right to demand that we get on with it". Strident words, perhaps, but somewhat ironic given Starmer appears to be set on a course for more military cuts for the UK armed forces in a coming spending review.
The British Prime Minister wrote of his decision now to join the Macron plan to deploy to Ukraine in the future:
The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine… being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.
I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm's way. But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine's security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent, and the security of this country.
Exactly how many soldiers would be needed to form a credible deterrent against any future Russian aggression in Eastern Europe is unclear. Some estimates have spoken of 100,000, and that might be difficult for Europe's hollowed-out military budgets despite it being a fraction of the million-man army talked of by President Zelensky.
Soldiers aren't everything, and a great deal of other systems would presumably have to be forward-deployed to enforce a truce in Ukraine, not least among them air systems, including combat jets and air defence missiles. President Zelensky has previously said if Ukraine won't be admitted into the protective umbrella of NATO — a difficult prospect if a peace deal sees Russia continue to occupy what the UN recognises as rightful Ukrainian land — it getting its own nuclear deterrent would be an acceptable alternative.
A problem for Sir Keir's suggestion of a "leading role" in a European deployment to Ukraine is the state of the British Armed forces, which, while retaining its proud traditions and high level of training, has very much been reduced to a peacetime-size force. The United Kingdom barely spends two per cent of its GDP on defence — good for the free market and welfare, less good for credible deterrence — radically down from the five per cent of the late Cold War and even ten per cent in the 1950s."
Comments