AS the wheels under this government fall off due to the inherent contradictions of its dogma exacerbated by events, our Prime Minister has embarked upon a series of U-turns. Pulling these contortions off in the face of the evidence and watched by a critical audience would challenge Olga Korbut. Sadly, the Toolmaker’s Son lacks her agility and grace.
The largest problem on his radar is Ukraine, or rather the growing split (read yawning chasm) between British, American and European views on how peace should be achieved and enforced. Already floundering after the Vance speech at Munich, Two-Tier and the equally desperate Macron cobbled together a risible plan in the hope that they would be taken seriously. They weren’t.
Now, in a desperate attempt to curry some favour he’s spun 180 degrees and is talking about bringing forward an increase in defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP from the end of this Parliament to some earlier (but unspecified) year. That’s the sort of statement that might impress a theoretical lawyer in a moot. In the world of mud, bullets and blood it’s just (another) indicator of a man completely out of his depth.
In three years the British armed forces will probably be even more hollowed-out as trained personnel leave faster than they can be replaced, making the forces not only 3 per cent smaller every year, but less competent and experienced as well. That leads directly to the next problem.
Fixing the armed forces is more complicated than running out of champagne at an Islington socialist drinks party. One can’t just flash the cash and Uber over another case as weaponry is a long-lead item. If it’s new weaponry or some new, war-winning AI-based system the time between spending and increased capability is very long.
When the kit finally arrives (almost invariably late and over budget) service personnel need to be taught how to use it. That’s hard when your most experienced personnel aren’t there any more. Only when the kit has arrived and the users are trained is there any uplift in combat capability. The British armed forces are short on capability today. Spending money in (say) 2027 won’t deliver much capability uplift until the 2030s. Presidents Trump and Putin know this. The dogs in the street know it. Starmer must know it, so he is dissembling again.
Then of course there’s the challenge of finding the cash. About nine months ago the government was wittering about a £22billion black hole in its spending plans. The tax take is declining as the economy shrinks. What is Two-Tier going to cut? Of course, if the UK’s economy is in recession (as it looks to be) 2.5 per cent of the reduced GDP will look awfully like 2.3 per cent of today’s spending. Such chicanery is routine for a politician and the Treasury.
When Nato acted from a headquarters ready to fight World War Three from Atlanta to Archangel (and beyond) no politician would produce such bilge. Now that Nato has lost its edge it’s typical of the empty words that are the stock in trade of Western politicians. Or was until President Trump was elected and started pointing out that the European Nato emperor was naked.
Worse, in Trump’s view, the United States has given some $350billion ($3,500 per American household) to Ukraine for precisely nothing back – that nothing including not winning the darn war and with no prospect of winning it without many more billions of dollars. Why, he asks, should the United States do what the Europeans won’t do for themselves?
That line of reasoning must have shaken the Toolmaker’s Son – lawyers are trained to spot persuasive arguments. Already suffering as a result of his deranged policy to give the Chagos Islands to a Chinese client, exacerbated by his appointment of the snide Trump despiser Lord Mandelson as our ambassador, Starmer needs something to take to his meeting with The Don.
Washington insiders think Two-Tier is in for a rough ride today. He has almost nothing that the US needs and almost nothing he can credibly take off the table. That’s a rotten place to start a meeting. Starmer wants the United States to give the UK a trade deal, continue to protect Europe, (including sheltering it under the American nuclear umbrella), deliver peace to Ukraine while funding a war there as well as being nice to Palestinian terrorists and protecting the freedom of the seas across the world. All for no charge.
Frederick Merz, the probable new German president, has suggested that European Nato could shelter under the Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. Perhaps. Whether President Putin (or anyone else) believes that London and Paris love the Baltic states so much that if he crosses their border they’ll immediately nuke Moscow and suck up the inevitable retaliation is moot, at best.
The theory of mutually assured destruction cuts both ways. I fear the United States might take a very dim view of the British launching a US-made Trident missile at Russia (or anywhere else, for that matter) without their prior agreement. That would be our only option as all of the few tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are American and under their direct control.
The French do have their own nuclear weapons, including the 100-to-300 kiloton TN21 that is fitted to their ASMP air-launched cruise missile. 100 kilotons is about seven Hiroshimas; it’s not a tactical nuclear weapon.
The Telegraph quotes https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/24/france-to-offer-nuclear-shield-for-europe/ an unnamed French source as suggesting that France will send nuclear armed fighter jets to an unnamed air base in Germany to pressure Putin, and claims that German diplomats will pressure the UK into doing the same.
The Telegraph needs to get better-informed journalists with better informed contacts. The last thing you do with nuclear armed aircraft is cavalierly move them to an unprepared air base. They need protection and a heck of a lot of security for the bombs. Moreover moving closer to Russia brings them into range of more Russian missiles. The UK doesn’t have any nuclear armed jets, or any air-launched nuclear weapons.
All in all it’s hard to see what Two-Tier will gain from today’s trip. Do Prime Ministers collect air miles?
