Stop the warmongering and start the diplomacy

Martin Shipton

Suddenly it’s become acceptable to talk about the possibility, or even the likelihood, of Britain going to war.

Parents are being asked to contemplate the possibility that their children will be expected to make the ultimate sacrifice – in other words, to get killed.

But while such ideas are being floated, politicians are not being honest about what such an approach would entail.

Since the Second World War, the mass of people in Britain have been shielded from the consequences of all-out warfare. During those 80 years, the British state has been involved in conflicts around the world, but none have involved the participation of young people conscripted for military service.

Any risk has been restricted to service professionals who signed up in the knowledge that their lives may be endangered.

The ongoing war in Ukraine is now being cited as a cause that could justify Britain’s abandonment of a policy position that has endured since 1945.

It’s being argued that Putin has territorial ambitions that go beyond Ukraine. If he wins the current war, either by seizing the rest of the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine – on the battlefield or by negotiation – and/or by achieving regime change In Kyiv, it’s suggested that he will invade the Baltic States, Finland or Poland, or a combination of all these countries. It’s up to the rest of Europe to stop him, so the narrative goes.

But there’s a fundamental dishonesty in the way this is being talked about. If this is really what British politicians believe, they need to speak candidly about what this will lead to cost-wise, both in terms of the economy and loss of life.

Former Bridgend council Labour leader Jeff Jones is scathing about the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, who gave a speech this week in which he said the UK needs “more people being ready to fight for their country”, adding: “Sons and daughters. Colleagues. Veterans will all have a role to play. To build. To serve. And if necessary, to fight. And more families will know what sacrifice for our nation means.”

Jones, a modern history graduate who reads on average a book a week about international relations, said: “I think the way people like him are talking is ridiculous. He has never had any direct involvement in war, and could be described as a Powerpoint General. He’s a manager.

“I see no appetite whatsoever amongst the general population to get involved in the kind of warfare he is talking about. Ultimately, however, this is a political decision.”

Credible

From an economic point of view, argues Jones, Britain would need to commit much more to rearmament if it was serious about getting a credible fighting force.

He said: “A decision has been made to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with the goal of allocating 3.5% to core defence and 1.5% to resilience/security. This is the equivalent to an extra £35-36bn in today’s money, with significant increases planned after 2027.

“We’re talking about very large amounts of money, and I’m not sure that Labour MPs realise the implications. If that’s the direction the government wants to take, they can’t afford to scrap the two-child benefit cap. The budget should have been very different from the one that was announced.”

The decision by EU countries not to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine but instead to extend a huge loan to the country follows on from previous decisions to restrict Ukraine’s ability to strike Russia. It indicates a reluctance to give the country 100% support, and sends a signal to Putin that he can keep going.

There’s no getting away from the fact that Trump’s presence in the White House has given Putin a huge advantage in the war with Ukraine.

Trump

Had Trump adopted a less conciliatory approach towards Russia, it is likely that by now there would have been a ceasefire on existing de facto borders. As it is, Putin forces are steadily advancing, albeit it would seem at a great cost in terms of manpower. But Russia has never been deterred by huge casualties, as it proved in World War Two when resisting the siege of Stalingrad.

Peace has persisted between the West and Russia – formerly in its guise as the most strategically important part of the Soviet Union – since the aftermath of the Russian revolution in 1917. At that time, the Western powers came to the conclusion that the Soviet army could not be defeated. Later, after the Second World War, it was accepted that the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence and control would include eastern Europe.

That remained the case until the Soviet Union collapsed because of its own internal contradictions in 1990. A significant element in the collapse was the decision to spend heavily on the military rather than in socially beneficial policy areas.

Spending

There are forces within our society – the military community, arms manufacturers and some politicians – who are pushing for higher levels of spending on “defence”. Such forces are blasé about the immense suffering that would be caused by involvement in warfare. Huge numbers of people on both sides have already died in Ukraine and many more have been maimed. The impact on the mental, as well as physical, health of those who participate in warfare on the scale it has been raging in Ukraine has been immense and is impossible to exaggerate.

Those who set up the League of Nations after the First World War and the United Nations after the Second did so out of a conviction that peace should prevail and that nations should behave with that as a guiding principle.

Just as the League of Nations failed in its mission, the United Nations is now a busted flush too, partly because of the anachronistic arrangement under which the one-time “great powers” like Britain are handed vetoes. There’s a crying need for reform. But first of all, let’s solve the Russia-Ukraine war via diplomacy. Or if not “solve”, at least provide the circumstances in which a ceasefire can hold.

And let’s tolerate no more warmongering talk.