The British establishment might best be described as America’s labradoodle. For while it has long been a cliché to describe it as America’s poodle, this is no longer entirely accurate. Poodles are generally docile dogs (albeit with an unfortunate tendency to bark hysterically at inappropriate moments). Labradors are energetic and boisterous creatures, given to dragging their owners into any nearby bush or puddle. The British labradoodle’s ambition is grander by far. It apparently wants to drag its owner into a world war.

We must hope that the Biden administration will continue to keep the Starmer government on a leash over the question of allowing Ukraine to fire British Storm Shadow missiles into Russia. In addition to requiring US permission owing to the presence of some American made—and licensed—components, this would also require US help with intelligence and targeting. Storm Shadows evade air defenses by flying very low, following the contours of the land. This requires “Terrain Reference Navigation,” a technology that the US has and Britain does not.

This deep US involvement in not only the provision but the targeting of these missiles explains why Moscow sees this as a very serious escalation, which if not checked would be a green light to the West to go further and further. It is therefore not open to serious doubt that this action could indeed lead to war between the West and Russia. In addition, precisely because Putin has allowed the West to cross so many Russian red lines, he is now under intense pressure to respond. He has also boxed himself in by his own public language:

If this decision is taken, it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.

Current Issue

View our current issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Subscribe

“It would mean,” he <a href="http://insists, “that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia.” The idea that in response Russia would move quickly to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine or elsewhere is nonsense, a straw man created by Western hawks (with help from some extremist Russian commentators whose views are opposed by the great majority of the Russian establishment) so they can easily knock it down. Any use of nuclear weapons—tactical or strategic—would be the last, not the first step in a cycle of mutual escalation. It would however also be almost inevitable if such a cycle, beginning with missile strikes, led in the end to full-scale direct war between Russia and NATO.

As an early response to such strikes, there are at least two far more plausible Russian options. The first is indirect: the supply of Russian missiles and targeting intelligence to Hezbollah, and to the Houthis in their attacks on Western shipping in the Red Sea (Russia is reportedly already providing greatly increased missile and intelligence assistance to Iran in return for Iran’s supply of drones to Russia). Given the present state of the Middle East, and the intense pressure by the Netanyahu government for the US to go to war with Iran, is this really the moment to incentivize Russia to stoke the conflicts of the region?

A second Russian response could be to attack specifically British targets (and French, if French SCALP missiles were also to be fired into Russia). This could take the form of sabotage of British infrastructure. Russia has already begun sabotage operations in Europe, but so far—contrary to Western intelligence claims—only on a small scale, and—in my view—as a warning of what Russia could do, rather than an attempt at serious damage.

Another possibility would be to shoot down British military aircraft close to Russian air space. This almost happened by accident in 2022. It could happen again—“accidentally.” Russians could see such actions as a response to strikes by Storm Shadows that would not automatically cause US escalation in return; and while this could prove a miscalculation under President Harris, it could well be the case under President Trump. For among the things that British advocates of missile strikes have apparently managed to forget is the US presidential elections in November.

The British public “debate” on this issue is of an almost unbelievable degree of fatuity—inevitably, perhaps, when the Labour government and Conservative opposition are united in bellicosity. Highly distinguished and decorated “experts” declare that the threat of Russian escalation is “nonsense” because Putin “is already doing his worst against Western societies.” Senior military analysts and retired military figures say that the Russian armed forces are simultaneously so weak that a few additional missiles can enable Ukraine to “win,” and that they are so strong that if not stopped in Ukraine, they could launch a direct attack on Britain in a few years’ time.

What explains this collective delirium, among people whose professional duty and raison d’être (for which they are also handsomely paid) is to conduct objective analysis in the service of the British state and people, and their vital interests? There are a whole set of reasons why Britain has placed itself so dangerously ahead of other Western governments and public opinion; fundamental to them, however, is the inherited and deeply ingrained desire of the British establishment to appear to act the role of a great power on the world stage, coupled with the fact that this charade always seems in the end to take a military, not a diplomatic form. In the words of former Conservative defense minister Grant Shapps:

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 cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Donate

This is a tragedy, because Britain’s role in the Commonwealth (loudly proclaimed by Brexiteers as a source of British international advantage), and relatively strong diplomatic presence in the “Global South,” give it the possibility of actually playing a useful role in the search for peace in Ukraine. By far the best chance for a peace settlement that avoids Western humiliation and further Russian gains, but that Russia could accept, would be one advanced by leading countries in the Global South through the United Nations. India, South Africa, and Brazil greatly desire an end to the war through a compromise peace, and have no sympathy with either Russian or Western maximalist aims. As I was told in Moscow, given the effort that Russia has invested in wooing these countries, it would be very difficult for the Kremlin to reject a peace plan from this source, as long as it met basic Russian conditions. If it chose to behave as a political great power, rather than posturing as a military one, Britain could help encourage such an effort.

Instead, Britain has echoed the US in lecturing its former colonies on their international duty—and while they are annoyed by such lectures from Washington, they absolutely despise them coming from their former colonial masters in London. As for the new Labour government’s own ideas for peace, all we have heard is Starmer’s true but also practically meaningless remark that “Russia could stop this war straight away” and Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s declaration, “What [Putin] should now do is cease his aggression and leave Ukraine.”

Fortunately, the decision on whether to allow Ukraine to strike into Russia rests with Washington, not London—not only because toeing the US line has long been a doctrine of the British establishment, but also because (as noted) US targeting intelligence is essential if the missiles are actually to hit what they are aiming at. Let us hope that President Biden continues to exercise restraint. Just because the British government has forgotten its duty to the safety and well-being of the British people, that is no reason for the US administration to forget its duty to the people of the United States.