Keir Starmer’s latest statements on Ukraine, reported in this BBC’s article, are a perfect example of how British politicians continue to delude us and themselves about our place in the modern world. While the United States under Donald Trump has clearly signalled its intention to de-escalate the conflict with Russia, our own politicians are still clinging to the fantasy that they can dictate terms in a war that is no longer theirs to shape.

The truth is that British politicians are allowed to govern this country—but as agents of a true ruling class that sees Britain only as a base from which to mount rent-extracting raids on the rest of the world. This is the ruling class that came out on top after the Great War and set about dismantling Britain as a world power—as a calculated move to eliminate any potential domestic competitor to its own supremacy. The landed interest was targeted first, weakened by punitive taxation and the erosion of inherited wealth. The Empire, once the evidence and even foundation of British power, was dismantled for the purpose of destroying a patriotic, energetic class of conquerors and administrators and engineers, who had their own ideas of what Britain was and should be. Then came the destruction of industry—shipbuilding, steel, coal, and manufacturing sectors owned and run by men with their own belief in production rather than financial speculation. The working class, once a force capable of political and economic resistance, was reduced to dependence on state welfare and low-paying service jobs.

The consequence is that Britain is now incapable of acting as the enforcement arm of its ruling class. It has neither the industrial base to sustain a war effort nor the diplomatic leverage to dictate global affairs. The British Government can no longer issue decrees and expect the world to comply. Britain now is a minor power, and minor powers do not dictate the course of global conflicts.

The BBC article presents Mr Starmer as standing firm against Mr Trump’s recent comments about the Zelensky regime in Kiev, in which Mr Trump reportedly described the Ukrainian leader as a “dictator.” Mr Starmer, keen to show Britain as a reliable ally, insists that the UK remain steadfast in its support for Ukraine. But support for what, exactly? The reality is that Ukraine’s war effort is failing. The grand counteroffensive of 2023 achieved little, Russian forces continue to grind forward, and morale in Kiev is reportedly collapsing.

Mr Trump and his new administration have decided that continued American support for the Zelensky regime is not in their interest. The American ruling class itself has directed this change of strategy. Mr Trump faces no serious resistance This is the reality that Britain and Europe must now face. The war is not going to end with Ukrainian tanks rolling into Sebastopol. The Americans are cutting their losses, and Britain, if it had any sense, would do the same.

Yet instead of adjusting to this reality, British politicians continue their delusions of relevance. Mr Starmer, much like his predecessor, still believes that Britain has a decisive role to play in global affairs. He talks of standing firm against Russian aggression, as though the world is waiting for his pronouncements. It is not.

The most alarming part of this report is the suggestion that NATO countries are considering sending 30,000 European troops—many of them British—into Ukraine. If this happens, it would be an act of unusual stupidity. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and direct European intervention would transform the war into a far more dangerous conflict.

For what purpose? To prolong a war that is already unwinnable? To sacrifice European soldiers in a doomed effort to prop up a regime that the Americans have decided is no longer worth defending? The idea that Britain, or any European country, should send its forces into Ukraine when the United States is disengaging is the height of recklessness.

If NATO sends troops, they will be targets. Their presence will not change the course of the war. It will only provoke Russia further and risk a direct confrontation that no one in Britain or Europe is prepared for. And when the inevitable casualties start mounting, those same politicians who pushed for intervention will be the first to disavow responsibility.

Britain and the rest of Europe are not global superpowers. The balance of power in this war has always rested with the United States. Now that the new American government is signalling de-escalation, it is in Europe’s interest to follow suit.

The only sensible course of action is to walk away from the Zelensky regime and patch up relations with Moscow. A negotiated settlement, however humiliating it may seem, is preferable to an endless war of attrition that only weakens Europe further. Trade, diplomacy, and security cooperation with Russia must be re-established before Europe finds itself completely isolated.

If the British Government had any real concern for the national interest, it would abandon its empty rhetoric, and start planning for a future in which Russia is an unavoidable part of European stability.

In itself, that would require a level of realism and competence that the British Government has not shown in living memory. It will happen, even so. The British ruling class is a partner of the American ruling class, and it seems to have been decided at the top that Russia cannot be weakened as was hoped. The politicians are behind in their understanding of what they masters want. But this will eventually be impressed on them, and we shall see grey faces parroting a new line. Until that happens, we are likely to see more desperate attempts to hold onto a national status that has long since vanished. The only question is how much damage will be done before the new instructions are understood and obeyed.