Keir Starmer’s peace plan could either have meant the beginning of the end of the war, or the escalation of a year-long nightmare for the UK and other European countries, who are almost competing with each other to show the most support for Zelensky. Now that the US has said it is withdrawing military support immediately, it seemed for a moment that it would be the taxpayers of the UK, and the rest of Europe, who would have to pick up the tab, with British soldiers potentially paying with their lives for Starmer’s «coalition of the willing» pretending to be Ukraine’s saviours. But it remains to be seen whether they could have done it without the US behind them, and now, at the eleventh hour, it looks like they might not have to. Hopefully it will be a lesson learnt.
Starmer’s peace plan, and not least the promises of money, weapons and soldiers on the ground, was of course hailed by those who are cheering for continued war – or victory for Ukraine, as it is also called in the traditional, and to some extent also in the social media. Just over half (58 per cent) of the British public polled on their attitude to British troops in Ukraine thought it was a good idea, while only a fifth were strongly opposed.
While a whopping 67 per cent of Tory voters are in favour of British boots on the ground, 44 per cent of Reform voters are opposed. This reflects the views of the respective party leaders well: While Kemi Badenoch is completely in line with Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage, who is a good friend of Trump, is critical of Zelensky and more supportive of the Ukraine war. He is consequently labelled a Putinist by his political rivals Kemi Badenoch and Keir Starmer, who are at loggerheads on this issue. They are part of what is known as the blob, i.e. the establishment that always comes together in crises, or what we should perceive as a crisis, as we saw during the corona pandemic. Criticism is not welcomed, and labelling of opponents is mandatory.
Momentum for the war hawks
But once the British, and possibly French, soldiers had faced the reality of peacekeeping in a brutal war, and returned home in white coffins, attitudes might have changed, and more might have ended up taking the same position as the US now stands for. Right now, there is a momentum for the war hawks shouting loudly about solidarity with Ukraine, but the idealism risks meeting the realism quite instantly – because Russia has said emphatically that they will not accept British and French forces in Ukraine, and they will become targets as soon as they set foot on Ukrainian soil. Are even more lives lost worth prolonging a war that most people recognise Ukraine cannot win – at least not without a full-scale war? If so, there is a risk that none of us will be winners.
Because what are the realities if Europe, led by the UK and France, were to bear the burdens of a so-called peace solution without help from the US? The UK has around 18,000 troops at its disposal. This is not enough to meet the needs of Ukraine under the so-called security guarantees, and will also lock the British military into Ukraine for years to come, with no reserves for any other conflicts. The will to fight may be there among the soldiers who have already been recruited, but there will be no draft in the UK like we see in Russia and Ukraine. Are other European countries also willing to sacrifice their young people? Many of us have seen the videos that abound on X, where Ukrainian men are hunted down, kidnapped and forced to fight in the war. Even Keir Starmer won’t go that far if the mineral deal with the US falls through, we can only hope. But as the mother of an 18-year-old son, it’s something you can’t help but think about in these uncertain times.
Economic realities
The economic realities are also disheartening. BBC Verify, the state broadcaster’s fact-checker, points out that the US accounts for almost half of all military and financial support to Ukraine, £67bn (£953bn). This is a huge sum to replace, and would have to mean a doubling of military support for all the other countries.
In tight economic times, taxpayers may not appreciate having to fork out for increased defence budgets while taxes go up in line with rising food prices, a general economic downturn and deteriorating public services. Unfortunately, there is no oil fund to draw on in the UK. Starmer is a globalist and apparently doesn’t care much about the domestic economy and the living conditions of ordinary Britons.
Can’t even defend Kent
As the historian David Starkey says: We can’t even defend Kent, so why do we think we can defend Kyiv? Starkey is, of course, referring to the illegal boat migrants who arrive almost daily, accompanied by rescue vessels and then accommodated in full-service hotels. The UK allows anyone to enter its coastline, but wants to deter Putin’s army in a foreign country.
But then again, maybe it was all plans and fine words, because now it’s reported that Zelensky is ready to sign the US minerals deal. Anyone who has accused Trump of being a spy recruited by the KGB in the 1980s, boycotting American products and cursing “the dictator Trump” can perhaps take a tiny breather. One can only hope. At the same time, this has been a wake-up call for Europe. Investment in our own defence must be stepped up, because Trump is not joking when he says “America first”. It is both right and reasonable for a country to look after itself first and foremost, and it does not make Trump a new Hitler to point out that his main concern is the USA and its citizens.
As journalist Michael Shellenberger says, on behalf of many Americans on the right: “Healthy relationships are built on mutual respect. Ukraine and Europe don’t respect us; they look down on us. And now we ask ourselves why we should continue to spend our money and risk our lives to protect Europe.” We in Europe have long leaned on Uncle Sam. It might make sense to prepare ourselves to at least pull most of our own weight, and maybe start thinking about how we treat America now that there’s a new sheriff in town. It’s not the sheriff that liberal-globalist Europe wants, but it’s the sheriff that Americans have chosen. Deal with it, as those across the pond would say.
Maybe the appetite for war will subside once the smoke has cleared. A strong defence is one thing, stirring up World War III is another. In the long term, we can perhaps hope for more peaceful relations to the east. There are plenty of other enemies to worry about.