“‘Curiouser and curiouser!’ Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English.” (Lewis Carol, Alice in Wonderland)
On Friday 13 September, I had a most peculiar experience. I was so astonished at what I was witnessing (and also what I was not witnessing) that I felt like uttering the celebrated words of Alice in Wonderland.
The occasion of my state of extreme bewilderment was the visit of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to Washington, where he was supposed to be meeting with the man who calls himself the President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden.
The actual content of the scheduled talks was, of course, not made available to the general public. However, a series of what were carefully planned leaks in the press made it fairly obvious that the main subject under discussion would be the war in Ukraine.
More specifically, the persistent demands of Volodymyr Zelensky that he should be granted permission to use western-made, long-range missiles for the purpose of conducting strikes deep into Russian territory. This, as I pointed out in my last article on Friday, was an extremely controversial issue, and one that was fraught with the most dangerous implications.
For a long time, the Americans had resisted this demand. The Pentagon and the US intelligence services have publicly expressed their very firm opposition to it. Yet persistent American refusals have never deterred Zelensky, who is accustomed to always getting his own way and will not take no for an answer. So far, however, he had gained little support within NATO, with one notable exception.
Enter Sir Keir Starmer
The new Labour government led by Sir Keir Starmer lost no time in making it clear to the whole world that Britain maintains its undying support for the cause of Ukraine and NATO, and intends to carry on the same belligerent policies that were the hallmark of the late, unlamented Conservative government.
In contrast to the prevarication across the Atlantic, the warmongering fraternity in London has obstinately continued to beat the war drums, complaining loudly about the irritating indecision in Washington, even openly portraying it as an expression of cowardice in the face of Russian threats.
Hardly had he stepped through the door of Number 10 Downing Street than Sir Keir nailed his right-wing credentials firmly to the mast. “The Tories have left us with a huge black hole in the finances and we will have to make difficult choices,” he proclaimed.
The new Labour government led by Sir Keir Starmer lost no time in making it clear to the whole world that Britain maintains its undying support for the cause of Ukraine and NATO / Image: Own work
He then proceeded to prove the point by cutting off the £300 subsidy that was being paid to all old-age pensioners in Britain in order to help them pay for higher winter fuel costs. The result is that many elderly people in Britain will have to choose this winter between keeping warm and putting food on the table.
Despite protests from charities, trade unions and the Labour rank-and-file, Sir Keir demonstrated his tremendous personal courage by refusing bluntly to withdraw this cruel attack on one of the poorest and most vulnerable layers of society.
“I’m very sorry, but there is no money for this.” Nevertheless, there was plenty of money available to send aid and arms to Ukraine for a criminal and senseless war. Labour claims that cutting the winter fuel allowance could save the government around £1.5 billion. Meanwhile, support for the Ukraine war has already cost the public £12.5 billion since February 2022, with £7.6 billion spent on arms alone.
For some strange reason, there always seems to be money for that particular purpose – although it never seems to be debated or voted on in Parliament or anywhere else, and is never mentioned in our wonderful ‘free press’.
Not only that, Starmer made a point of inviting his friend Zelensky to London and even allowed him to attend a meeting of the Cabinet – a highly unusual occurrence in Britain. In fact, he is the first foreign leader to address the Cabinet in person since Bill Clinton in 1997.
All this was part of a plan to show that Britain is still a key player in world affairs and the most determined standard bearer for the cause of the criminal junta that rules the roost in Kyiv. Starmer was anxious to win credibility as a great international leader. Like the bullfrog in Aesop’s fable, he puffed himself up to a great size. And he ended equally badly.
Who is David Lammy?
The Bible tells us that God created man after his own image. And, not to be left behind, Keir Starmer has created a Foreign Minister after his. David Lammy describes himself as “conservative with a small ‘c’”. In fact, we can safely dispose of the small ‘c’. His policies are completely indistinguishable from those of the previous Conservative administration.
He supports a ‘NATO first’ policy and marches in step with the US State Department, advocating extensive military backing for Ukraine, including striking into Russia with Storm Shadow missiles. In other words, Mr Lammy is an extreme right-wing warmonger – the very image and semblance of his boss. He is also as ignorant and narrow-minded.
All this plays well with the hawks in Washington, particularly men like Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who he recently assured: “The UK-US relationship is special. It’s special to me personally and it’s special to so many Brits and Americans.”
Such soothing language is music to the ears of the Biden Administration. But behind the scenes, the Americans are scornful of the UK’s current military capability and are waiting to see if Labour spends a lot more money on it. They will surely not be disappointed.
Articles suddenly began to appear in The London Times and other newspapers clearly implying that the Americans had changed their minds and had finally come around to accepting the view of the British, that the Ukrainian request should be accepted. At this point, the plot thickens.
There is little doubt that the source of these stories, clearly indicating that America was edging towards authorising the use of Storm Shadow, an Anglo-French weapon that relies on American GPS guidance systems, was none other than the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.
Now, finally, it appeared that a decision was close at hand and that the Americans had made up their minds to accept Zelensky’s demand. It was assumed that it was all a done deal and that an announcement would be made on Friday the 13th, following a meeting between the British Prime Minister and the man in the White House.
Encouraged by this information, Sir Keir Starmer packed his bags and set out for what he was sure would be a highly profitable visit to the White House. True, there were some very annoying messages from the Foreign Office, warning against this move.
But Sir Keir was now walking on air, and he dismissed this pessimistic nonsense with a contemptuous wave of the hand. This was his first excursion into the realm of international politics, and nothing was going to prevent him from making his mark as a great statesman at the centre of the world stage.
But in the words of the great Scottish poet Robert Burns:
“The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.”
Things did not quite go to plan, as we shall see.
What happened on Friday 13th?
The procedure for such meetings is quite well known. The heads of state gather together for a private conversation on various important matters. The exact details of this meeting remain a closely guarded secret, although the way in which the negotiations have unfolded can be ascertained with a fair degree of accuracy from the way they are subsequently reported.
Those negotiations that have gone tolerably well are described with words like “a cordial exchange of views”. But if we read phrases like “a frank exchange of views”, one must assume that there was a blazing row. On this occasion, there may not have been such a row, but the word “cordial” is clearly out of place.
On this occasion, the Sunday Times informs us that:
“Insiders say the White House talks, which lasted 90 minutes, were ‘very open’ about ‘the choices ahead of us’.”
The words “very open” indicate that there was no agreement at all.
The Brits are trying hard to smile but they cannot help resembling a group of naughty schoolchildren who have just received a stern lecture from the headmaster / Image: Number 10, Flickr
Far from agreeing to Zelensky’s demand, Biden and his team signalled that they wanted to go into a “holding pattern” until Zelensky has presented his “victory plan” – before giving their approval for attacks inside Russia.
The British officials listened with growing astonishment and alarm to these words, which flatly contradicted the impression they had taken from Blinken’s hints. The photographs in the press tell their own story. The Americans are stony faced, especially Biden, who appears to be very angry.
True, this is not necessarily unusual on the part of this embittered old man, who appears to be angry with the world in general. But, to put it mildly, the Americans did not appear to be impressed by the arguments of their colleagues from London. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In the photograph, the Brits are trying hard to smile but they cannot help resembling a group of naughty schoolchildren who have just received a stern lecture from the headmaster. But it is the other side who tell us all we need to know.
The conclusive evidence for the failure to reach any agreement on the disputed matters is shown by the subsequent absence of any official announcement whatsoever.
Normally, after such a meeting of heads of state, there would be a press conference on the lawn outside the White House where both sides would express their complete satisfaction with what has gone before, declaring their undying friendship and solidarity, before shaking hands warmly before the assembled press photographers. And everything would end with smiles all round.
I waited patiently for that propitious moment, in the fervent hope that it would provide me with a clear understanding of what had been decided. I waited, and I waited, and I waited. But the propitious moment never arrived.
It was curiouser and curiouser…
The reality of the ‘Special Relationship’
In my last article, I named Joe Biden as one of the chief warmongers in the world. I believe that statement to be correct. Biden was undoubtedly the chief architect of what might be called ‘Project Ukraine’, which pushed the Ukrainians into an unwinnable war with Russia that has cost very many lives and, unless it is stopped, will cost even more.
Since the commencement of that conflict, there have been moments when peace could have been brought about through negotiations. That was particularly the case with the so-called Istanbul agreement of April 2022. That agreement had been initialled by both Russia and Ukraine, but was deliberately sabotaged by Boris Johnson at the instigation of Washington.
Since then, Biden has been the most aggressive advocate of war in Ukraine and hostility towards Russia. In the Middle East, he played a very pernicious role when he gave a blank cheque to Netanyahu to attack the people of Gaza.
At the present time, while hypocritically paying lip service to a fictitious ‘negotiation’, he continues to pledge complete support for Israel and opposes any suggestion that the USA should cease supplying its ally with large amounts of money and arms. He is therefore clearly complicit in the genocidal actions of the Israelis in Gaza.
One can therefore be absolutely certain that Biden’s instinct would be to grant Zelensky’s demand for permission to use US missiles for deep strikes inside Russia. Why not, indeed? He has supported every other demand from Kyiv to send weapons (such as the F-16 fighter plane), which he once promised not to do.
That is why it seemed obvious that he would agree with Starmer’s plan. But it appears that he not only rejected it, but did so with every indication of irritation, even anger. That is the reason for the absence of smiley photographs and saccharine declarations of friendship. It also explains the absence of any official declaration – at least so far.
The reason for this is obvious. It has now finally dawned upon a growing number of people in Washington that the Ukrainian war is not only lost, but lost irrevocably. And there is a growing feeling that to pour further billions of dollars into a lost cause is simply not a sensible investment.
In short, it may be time to cut our losses. That view has been most clearly expressed by Donald Trump, who now speaks contemptuously about Ukraine in general and Zelensky in particular, who he scornfully refers to as “the world’s greatest salesman”:
“Every time he comes to our country, he walks away with $60 billion. He just left four days ago with $60 billion, and he gets home, and he announces that he needs another $60 billion. It never ends. It never ends.”
But Trump is not the only one. As we have seen, the Pentagon and the CIA have made clear their implacable opposition to the Ukrainian demand to use US missiles for deep strikes inside Russia. Some people inside the administration, notably Anthony Blinken, do not share this view. But they are clearly coming under pressure.
The constant vacillations over the missile question is a manifestation of profound divisions within the administration.
And into this whirlpool steps the British Prime Minister with his plans for Ukraine tucked under his arm.
He was obviously expecting a hero’s welcome in Washington. After all, is Britain not America’s most faithful and loyal ally and friend? Is there not a Special Relationship between the two countries?
But in the murky waters of diplomacy, friendships are always relative and temporary. They last just as long as their usefulness to a given state. And from America’s point of view, Britain’s usefulness has long since passed its sell-by date.
The much-vaunted ‘Special Relationship’ does, in fact, exist. It is the relationship between a butler and his master / Image: Own work
The much-vaunted ‘Special Relationship’ does, in fact, exist. However, there is a comical misunderstanding on the British side as to its exact nature. It is the relationship between a butler and his master. Neither more, nor less.
We know all about this relationship from English novels, such as those of Agatha Christie and P.G. Wodehouse. A faithful and loyal butler is highly regarded by an appreciative master. His services are valued for their utility.
The butler opens doors, welcomes honoured guests, ensures that the food on the table is edible, the champagne is served cold, that suits are faultlessly pressed and shoes are clean enough to see one’s face reflected on them.
Above all, he is a master of tact at all times. He puts his master to bed when he has imbibed an excess of port wine after dinner and never mentions any of his little faults and peccadilloes. Above all, he speaks only when spoken to, and even then confines himself to a few discreet words.
He never expresses any opinion on any weighty subject whatsoever, whether on matters such as religion or (God forbid!) politics, since it is well-known that such subjects are no concern of servants, even butlers.
Here we have the true root of the present unfortunate situation. Sir Keir enjoyed the enviable status of a highly prized and loyal butler who could dazzle any audience in Washington with his high-class English accent and polished manners.
However, having just been elected the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, this butler has suddenly developed ideas above his station. He not only feels entitled to express definite opinions, but to speak before he is told to, and moreover, to actually speak to his master as if he were somehow an equal. Such conduct is truly astonishing!
Evidently, the butler was not anticipating a cool reception. After all, he was only trying to please his master by telling him things he thought he wanted to hear. Very probably, that might have been the case a few months ago. But now things in Washington have moved on.
Although formally President of the United States, Biden is no longer Captain of the Ship. Other hands are tugging at the steering wheel – and tugging in different directions. The constant splits and divisions, both within the administration, and between the administration and the state apparatus, are a constant headache for him, seriously interfering with his chief interest in life, which now appears to centre on the golf course.
Poor old Joe is being pulled in one direction and another. Matters have become extremely complicated. And now, to make matters even worse, along comes this stupid Brit, trying to tell us how to run our own affairs. It really is too much!
If there is one thing that members of the political class in Washington do not appreciate, it is foreigners telling them what to do. It is the equivalent of a butler lecturing his master on the affairs of his own household – an absolutely intolerable state of affairs!
Butlers who rise above their station can, fortunately, be dismissed. But matters are not quite so simple when it comes to the elected Prime Minister of a foreign state. Unfortunately, such creatures cannot be simply shown the door. One simply has to bite one’s lip, remain silent, answer politely – and then simply ignore everything they have said.
This is more or less what was done last Friday. And now the real nature of the so-called ‘Special Relationship’ has been cruelly exposed. But there was a slight difficulty. Since Lammy and others in Downing Street had deliberately leaked to the press stories that Starmer and Biden were on the verge of an agreement prior to Friday 13th, it would have been impossible – or, at least, highly embarrassing – to issue a public denial.
By their stupid blundering, these fools from London immediately succeeded in provoking a furious reaction in Moscow. Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear that if a decision was taken to permit the use of US long-range missiles to be used against targets deep inside Russia, this would amount to an act of war.
No doubt there were frantic phone calls to Moscow and attempts to calm things down. But the damage was done. Faced with what amounted to a fait accompli, the Americans were compelled to accept it, while refusing to acknowledge it with an official declaration, working behind the scenes to try to limit the damage.
Zelensky’s fury
If there is one man who has been infuriated by all this, it was precisely Zelensky, who saw this plan as his last hope in a situation where everything is collapsing around him.
Already before Starmer’s visit to Washington, the US sent Blinken and Lammy to Kyiv, to have a quiet word with Zelensky. He must have thought that they were coming to deliver the good news that his plan had been approved. Instead, they presented him with a list of detailed questions as to how exactly he intended to use the aforementioned missiles.
He had no satisfactory answer to their questions, and was clearly taken aback by the very fact that they had been asked. That was not at all what he expected! Typically, he flew into a rage and issued a stream of complaints and protests that went far beyond the normal bounds of polite diplomacy.
Lunacy in London
Yesterday, the Sunday Times published a most interesting article, which has clearly drawn upon certain authoritative and well-informed, but anonymous sources. It appeared under the following title: ‘Five ex-defence secretaries tell PM: let Ukraine fire our missiles’.
The five former defence secretaries (all well-known right-wing conservatives and warmongers) were named as Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace, Gavin Williamson, Penny Mordaunt and Liam Fox. To complete this rogues’ gallery of rabid reactionaries, we have one ex-prime minister: the notorious circus clown Boris Johnson.
They have united to urge Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to allow Ukraine to use its long-range Storm Shadow missiles to strike inside Russia. He should do this immediately, even without US backing. Not to do so, they say, would undermine Zelensky and embolden President Putin.
The belligerent language employed by these superannuated politicians closely resembles the loud baying of a pack of hounds. Leading the chorus of barking dogs calling on Britain to act unilaterally, Shapps said:
“Rather than waiting for formal approval from the US, Sir Keir needs to provide President Zelensky with what’s desperately needed today. That’s how we assumed our global leadership position in supporting Ukraine. We acted. Others followed. And it’s the kind of leadership that’s required again for Ukraine today.”
Ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson poses with members of the Neo-Nazi Azov batallion in 10 Downing street / Image: X
Wallace said that failure to move now would make Britain “appeasers” of the Kremlin, the same kind of language used to describe the appeasement of Hitler by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Williamson called it a “dereliction of duty” and Johnson – not to be left behind – added: “There is no conceivable case for delay.”
Wallace said:
“Britain is in danger of falling behind into the pack of ditherers, appeasers and delayers, when the only real way to stand up to a bully such as Putin is to be strong, united and determined to see it through.”
However, it is necessary to pose a question to these ladies and gentlemen. Until very recently, you were part of a Conservative government that was perfectly able to do what you are now demanding. If that was as urgent and imperative as you now say it is, why did you not do it yourselves?
The answer is perfectly clear. They could not do it then, for the very same reason that Starmer cannot do it now. Because it is technically impossible to operate the storm Shadow missiles, not just without the permission of the Americans (and the French, by the way), but without their active participation.
It is precisely that point that was behind Putin’s warning that such a move would constitute an act of war, forcing Russia to respond with equivalent measures. In his speech, the Russian leader pointed out, quite correctly, that the missiles under consideration cannot be operated by the Ukrainians, because they require the employment of technology that is beyond their capability, including US or European satellites to establish the necessary coordinates.
For these technical reasons, the demand that Britain should now ‘go it alone’ and fire the missiles without the Americans consenting to participate is either a display of incredible ignorance, or else, more likely, cynical rhetoric in order to score points. Either way, it is the height of criminal irresponsibility.
The Sunday Times itself feels compelled to point this out:
“The government has repeatedly said they need the approval of both the US and France before allowing Zelensky full use of the missiles. In fact this is not absolutely correct, but it is practically true.”
This is a very peculiar use of the English language, and even stranger use of logic. If something is practically true, it follows that it is absolutely correct – in practice, if not in theory. But in the real world, it is practice that determines the result in the last analysis.
Even more criminal is the frivolous assumption made by all these people that Vladimir Putin is bluffing. As a leading British diplomat recently pointed out: Putin is bluffing until he isn’t.
By repeatedly provoking and pushing the Russians through constant escalation into a more belligerent stance, you are, in effect, gambling with the lives of millions of people. A greater crime against the people of this planet is difficult to imagine.
What becomes crystal clear from these absurd and demented declarations is the ridiculous delusions of these reactionary politicians about Britain’s alleged ‘leading role’ in the world. In their addled brains, Britannia still rules the waves in a glorious empire over which the sun will never set.
Unfortunately, in the real world, which they have absolutely no knowledge or interest in, the sun has set on the glories of the British Empire a long time ago. And hysterical articles in the Sunday Times will not cause it to rise again.
A common feature of all these ladies and gentlemen is a complete inability to face facts or look reality in the face.
Wallace brags: “We were the first in Europe to put in lethal weapons and we have continued to support Ukraine all the way through.” They boast that, “Britain’s leadership from the outset was vital in galvanising the international response.”
Reading the insane proposals of people like Ben Wallace takes us right back to the world of Alice in Wonderland, where we initially set out from. Just listen to this, for a prime example of lunacy:
“Wallace is pressing for the West to give military training to a million Ukrainians, who would then be better prepared if they were conscripted. He also wants to see the UK defence manufacturers go on to more of a war footing” [our emphasis].
Where are these one million Ukrainians supposed to come from? Does Mr Wallace not read the newspapers? Does he not know that at this moment in time, Ukraine is bleeding to death, losing up to 2,000 dead and wounded every day?
Does he not know that the people of Ukraine are now so tired of the war that they are resorting to extreme measures in order to avoid military service, which they know is a recipe for certain death? Does he not know that young men are fleeing abroad, risking their lives in dangerous journeys over the mountains to Romania?
Either he does not know these facts, or he chooses to ignore them. Either way, his opinions and suggestions in relation to the Ukrainian war are not worth even looking at.
The fact of the matter is that the war in Ukraine is now lost, and there is absolutely nothing that Britain or America can do to change that. And no amount of bluster and bluff in the columns of the Sunday Times can alter that.
What now?
What will happen now? It is difficult to say. Formally, the Americans have not agreed to anything. But in practice, some kind of agreement must be reached, although its exact nature is a closely guarded secret. In the short run, one must conclude that the delivery of long-range missiles to Ukraine will proceed only very slowly – if it proceeds at all.
As I pointed out in my last article, in practice, the stocks of these missiles are very limited. And it may well be the case that the long list of restrictions on their use will make it all but impossible to use them for the purpose intended by Zelensky.
However, if we go by past experience, the Americans have frequently refused to accept a particular demand from Kyiv, but after some delay, they change their mind and capitulate. That may be the case here also.
The whole thing is a desperate attempt on Zelensky’s part to stave off a defeat that is absolutely inevitable and unavoidable. His desperate gamble in Kursk has failed miserably, just as we predicted. It did not result in the transfer of large numbers of Russian troops from the central front in Donbass, which is on the point of collapse.
The whole thing is a desperate attempt on Zelensky’s part to stave off a defeat that is absolutely inevitable and unavoidable / Image: Fair use
On the contrary, by pursuing this delusional policy, it is Zelensky himself who has withdrawn large numbers of his best troops from key places like Pokrovsk, which is virtually surrounded and facing collapse even in the next few days.
The real reason for his persistent demand to use missiles against targets deep inside Russian territory is to provoke a conflict that will drag the Americans into a direct military confrontation with Russia. In that way, the Americans can do the fighting on his behalf.
That this would mean World War III, and that this would be a conflict between the two major nuclear powers, is a matter of no concern for this egocentric megalomaniac. His overriding concern is to save himself, since he is staring defeat in the face.
However, this is something that neither America nor Russia desire. Nor is it likely to happen. Let us look up the facts of the case. To begin with, even if the Americans finally give the green light for the use of the said missiles, the results will not be as spectacular as some people expect.
Russia possesses very advanced air defences, which have already shown themselves to be very effective against missiles like the US ATACMS or the British Storm Shadow. The effect of such missiles will therefore be quite small, and the impact on Russia’s war effort in Ukraine will be precisely zero.
If these missiles are finally used against civilian targets inside Russia, a Russian response will be inevitable and dramatic. But it will not take the form of missile strikes against the USA. There are many other ways in which the Russians can cause serious damage to US assets, which are spread all over the world and present very tempting targets.
The equation of power is really very simple. If the Americans decide to equip their Ukrainian proxies with sophisticated weapons for use against Russia, the Russians will feel free to deliver equally sophisticated weapons to their friends and allies, for example in the Middle East.
The western press is full of alarmist stories about Russia allegedly receiving supplies of missiles from Iran. On the face of it, such claims do not seem particularly believable, since the Russians have plenty of missiles already and possess a powerful arms industry that is churning out supplies of missiles, tanks, planes and artillery shells at a rate far faster than the West can compete with.
Far more worrying for NATO and the Americans would be a decision by the Russians to supply sophisticated missiles and other technology to the Iranians. And this is entirely possible, and in fact inevitable. The Israelis recently sent a delegation to Moscow to make urgent enquiries about this. They are deeply worried, and have every reason to be so.
The Pentagon is well aware of the danger. That is why they are implacably opposed to giving in to Zelensky’s demands. And opposition in NATO to Zelensky’s demand is growing. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, for one, has said that Germany will not allow Ukraine to launch attacks with German weapons far behind the front “even if other countries decide otherwise”.
Even Joe Biden, in his rare moments of mental lucidity, seems to be coming to a vague awareness of the reality of the situation. A recent biography quotes him as saying to a colleague: “it looks like Zelensky wants to push us into war with Russia.”
Everything seems to indicate that the reality of the situation is gradually beginning to dawn on people in Washington. The lunatics in London are going to be sadly disappointed. World War III is off the menu – at least, for the time being.