On 15 October the Sunday Times reported that “five former British Defence Secretaries and the ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson have urged Sir Keir Starmer to supply Ukraine with long range Storm Shadow missiles to strike deep inside Russia, even without US backing.”

This joint statement was preceded by a week or so of high-profile media interviews on the BBC conveying the impression that British pressure was going to convince the Americans to satisfy Ukrainian demands for the long-range missiles. Britain, one presumes, could then claim credit for shifting Washington from its position of restraining the war within the limits it prefers, on behalf of Kyiv.

In one of these BBC interviews Grant Shapps, one of the five former British Defence Secretaries, suggested that the Russians were bluffing about threatening retaliation if Kyiv was given the missiles. His argument was that because the West had crossed the Kremlin’s “red lines” on countless occasions before and Putin had failed to back up his threats it was safe to assume the same would happen again. There was nothing to worry about in escalating the conflict. He also made the astonishing claim that Russia had suffered more than half a million fatalities in fighting the Ukrainians. There was no sign that BBC fact checkers were sent to investigate this ridiculous claim.

The interviewer might have asked Shapps whether he had heard of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, or the previous military operation that rapidly absorbed Crimea in 2014. It would have been interesting how Shapps would have explained that as anything other than Putin acting in response to a “red line” being crossed. He could hardly have explained it in terms of the West cleverly luring Putin across the borders. But what other explanation is there aside from the fact that Putin had warned the West he was serious about the threat to the Russian Ukrainians from Kyiv, and Russia itself, from the increasing militarisation in eastern Ukraine, and then acting when the West doubted his seriousness?

As a reminder to the former British Defence Secretary this is how Putin described NATO’s expansion into Ukraine as crossing a red line for Russia during his speech on 24 February 2022 which announced the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation:

“We cannot stand idly by and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing for us to do for us. Any further expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold on the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us…It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it… There should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country…No matter who tries to stand in our way or create threats for our country and people, they must know Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken.”

The Sunday Times reported another of the former five, Ben Wallace, suggesting that “those who fail to act now would be appeasers of the Kremlin.” Gavin Williamson, another lost leader, described it as “a dereliction of duty” if Britain (and the US?) failed to support an immediate escalation through supply of the missiles. And Grant Shapps argued that Britain “should not wait” for US formal approval but should supply Kiev with the weapons it wants today.

However, no sooner had the British warmongers nailed their colours to the mast than the US National Security Council stated there would be no change to their policy on not allowing the use of long-range missiles on Russian territory. Despite Sir Keir Starmer then flying to Washington for talks with Biden to seal the deal and pleas from Zelensky for permission to use the British made missiles the British Prime Minister had to leave central command empty handed. The US showed Britain who was master of war.

The relationship between Britain and the United States is sometimes referred to as the “special relationship” but in truth it is more akin to the master and servant relationship. That is certainly the case since Churchill made Britain a client state of the US in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is something that Enoch Powell, who might be called the last Briton, recognised over 50 years ago.

It is probable that the United States is not against supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles and the technology for them to find their target accurately, but it does not want to do this at such a sensitive time as in the run-up to the very important US Presidential election in November. The Biden/Harris administration is obviously keen not to upset the world in the build up to the election in which it hopes Kamala will be elected and can resume business as usual come January. It is understood that a serious provocation of the Russians at this point could easily lead to a de-stabilisation that could be fatal for Harris and lead to the return of Donald Trump as President. And then what?

Therefore, the United states has shelved the British escalation proposal, much to the chagrin of Zelensky and the British warmongers.

It is sometimes said that the US wishes to “fight to the last Ukrainian.” Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that when the US believes Ukraine has given all it has to give the British will still be there to extract the last pound of flesh from them: “Yours not to reason why, yours just to do or die!”

It is difficult to explain this state of mind, but it must have something to do with a frustration about lack of power in the contemporary world on Britain’s part. In former times British Defence Secretaries, then known more appropriately as Ministers of War, determined things in the world from the Whitehall corridors of power. Now, alas, they have to play second fiddle to the Master in Washington and it obviously grates on the British. The fact that people of Third XI calibre, like Grant Shapps and Gavin Williamson, feel they should have the power to determine life and death on a global scale is evidence of this grand illusion which is happily not likely to be a reality while there are saner minds in Washington.

It is an interesting fact that there is virtually no independence of thought at all in Britain with regard to the conflict in Ukraine, while in the United States there are a substantial number of free-thinking individuals who constantly criticise the actions of their own government. It is still akin to heresy in Britain to even suggest the closing down of the war, even in sympathy with the plight of the Ukrainians who are now in a very tight spot.

The cynical Boris Johnson was recently recorded by a prankster-interviewer suggesting that Zelensky probably wishes he took the Russian deal he was offered in Istanbul in 2022. Of course, it was Mr Johnson himself who convinced Zelensky to reject the deal and fight on for victory instead, with the promised backing of the West!

Putin had no territorial ambitions in Ukraine, aside from Crimea, before the attempted settlement at Istanbul in March/April 2022. The subversion of this fair and generous settlement brought about a costly war of attrition for Russia in which losses in blood and treasure will be paid for by Kiev in territory.

General Syrsky, the Ukrainian chief of staff, recently put the Russian army that invaded Ukraine at only 100,000 men. It was not an army built for offensive war. It was indeed, as described, an expeditionary force conducting a special military operation. One day after the invasion peace feelers were put out for a settlement and within a month there was the Istanbul peace talks that were subverted by Boris Johnson et al. Zelensky was told to walk away from the negotiations in which territory would have been handed back to Kyiv in return for a commitment by the government not to join NATO. Progress was certainly made and a deal was close before the West gave Zelensky an ultimatum: fight on or take your chances with Moscow.

With “friends” like that who really needs an enemy like Russia?