РУССКИЙ
11:31 12.01.2026 •
Who does Keir Starmer think he's kidding? Not Vladimir Putin, that's for sure, stresses General Sir Richard Shirreff at ‘The Daily Mail’.
This week's 'declaration of intent' sees our Prime Minister pledging to deploy British troops in Ukraine as a peacekeeping force, to 'establish military hubs... securing Ukraine's skies and seas'.
The commitment, in partnership with France, is 'to stand with Ukraine for the long term. It paves the way for the legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil', claims Sir Keir.
But can he – can we – keep such promises? In a word, no. I do not believe for a moment we have the manpower, the equipment, the money or the political will to be true to our word.
These empty pledges, I predict, will come back to haunt the PM. The whole conceit is wildly unrealistic.
There can be no peacekeeping force before there is peace. Russian missiles continue to bombard Kyiv, drones scream across the steppes, and the number of the dead continues to rise.
Yes, the Americans are once again making diplomatic signals that imply support for a peace deal in Ukraine.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff claims the US is 'willing to do anything necessary' to end the conflict, which began four years ago next month.
But Trump's affections blow with the wind. The US President has veered from appearing to support Putin, to humiliating Zelensky in the Oval Office with the world watching, to making warm noises about Ukraine – and back again. You cannot trust a word he says. And the Americans have so far proved unable or unwilling to drag Putin to the table.
All this makes Starmer's talk of 'peace through strength' academic.
We are left with the unedifying impression of a British PM making promises he knows he will never be able to keep, to maintain the pretence – perhaps in part because his position is so weak domestically – that the UK is a significant player in world affairs.
A lifetime of military service has taught me that if Starmer is genuinely committed to sending a ceasefire-implementation force to Ukraine, then Britain has to be prepared for full-on war with Russia. And we are not. So we should only risk it if we are ready for the worst case.
After all, Starmer's putative force cannot be a lightly armed, 'blue beret' peacekeeping corps, UN-style. It must be ready to enforce the peace, not merely observe it. That means being equipped to 'overmatch' the Russians in military jargon – and fight them if necessary.
That will demand a significant military force with a high degree of co-ordination – a joint operation between the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, in tandem with French armed forces and those of other nations.
I was in Kosovo in 1999, when Nato deployed a peace-enforcement force to the former Yugoslavian country. This required some 50,000 serving men and women. I commanded a brigade of mainly British but also Nordic troops.
Kosovo was a pocket handkerchief compared to Ukraine – a country of nearly a quarter of a million square miles. The frontline is up to 800 miles long. Enforcing peace in the teeth of Russia across an area that big would be a challenge to flummox Napoleon.
And we are already far from the military power we once were. Much of our arsenal, from tanks to bullets, has already been supplied to Ukraine – and I highly doubt that it has been replaced.
Even now, with the US disregarding international law to take control in Venezuela (and possibly Greenland), and Russia intensifying its threats against Europe, Labour MPs appear blissfully ignorant that, in the end, the defence of the realm is the final question.
Starmer's lofty proclamations on the world stage seem utterly divorced from the reality of government policy.
The horrible truth is that successive governments, not just Labour, have left us entirely unprepared for the sort of warfare that has consumed Ukraine.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
