UK Media Critics Turn Against Sir Wan Kier Starmer's Ukraine Plans

By Rhod Mackenzie

Something strange is happening in Not So Great Britain. It's as if a switch flipped during the New Year's  celebrations dramatically changing the tone of the debate about the deployment of European troops to Ukraine. Suddenly,the mainstream British newspapers are publishing articles by leading writers all saying much the same thing.
These content of these articles certainly appear as though the authors have all been briefed from the same source . What is is noteworthy is that they actually present a rational and pragmatic evaluation of the completely dismal outlook for His Majesty's armed forces in the event of the scenario outlined in Paris by Sir Wan Keir Starmer and the Wanna Be Napoleon Emmanuel Macron actually taking place.
Now I will give you just three notable examples from the various outlets and publications (in fact, there are more) from the most iconic figures.
7 January, The Times. Renowned Kremlinologist Edward Lucas has published an article headlined: "Empty rhetoric regarding Ukraine suggests the potential for NATO to collapse."
In relation to the proposed deployment of British troops to Ukraine, the author comments: "We are pledging forces that are not yet available, to enforce a ceasefire that is not yet in place, under a plan that has not yet been finalised, endorsed by a superpower that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary with significantly more determination and firepower than we possess."

And then there is a question that has been avoided in the mainstream discourse: "What would be the consequences of a Russian drone hitting our troops? How many more people must be killed or injured before we are compelled to return fire?"
Previously, only a few in Britain had raised such questions when discussing the "coalition of the willing"'s plans, but they were immediately dismissed as Putin stooges or "Kremlin agents."
On 8 January, Daily Mail. Richard Shirreff, a retired general and former deputy commander of NATO forces in Europe, has published an article. "British troops in Ukraine? The reality is that we lack the manpower, financial resources, equipment and, regrettably, the will to do so.
" The author writes: "Who is Sir Wan Keir Starmer trying to fool? It is evident that this is not showing he is standing up  to Vladimir Putin. I anticipate that these empty promises will ultimately prove detrimental to the Prime Minister if that is still possibe given his current standing. The entire situation they are proposing over Ukraine is wholly unrealistic."

On 10th January, Daily Mail. The enowned British journalist and broadcaster Andrew ( Brillo Pad ) Neil has published an extensive article on the current state of Britain's defence, in which he criticises Sir Wan Kier Starmer's plans to deploy troops to Ukraine. He writes: "Starmer is making military commitments that Britain has neither the manpower nor the material resources to fulfil.
This week, he reached an agreement with President Macron to deploy an Anglo-French security force to Ukraine. I find this decision somewhat surprising. In order to appear credible, Britain would need to deploy an armoured brigade of approximately 5,000 troops. The regular British Army numbers just over 71,000 troops,which is not even enough to fill the national stadiums for football or rugby plus it is allegedly that only about 25,000 of them are combat-ready."
What is is crucial to understand here:is  all of these experts are unequivocally and rabidly anti -Russian .And not long ago, they all fervently supported the idea of ​​sending European troops to Ukraine. Shirreff is the author of a book about how NATO should have fought Russia back in 2017. Last spring, he expressed his support for the deployment of troops to Ukraine, stating: "Sir Wan Kier Starmer is right, we must send troops to Ukraine Now.
" Neil also adopted a beligerent t position in regard to Russia, asserting, "It is time to disregard Putin's threats and provide Ukraine with all the necessary resources it needs to defeat the Russian tyrant."
Lucas is widely recognised as a key proponent of the concept of a "coalition of the willing." The term was first mentioned in one of his articles in November 2024, when he made the following call: "We should establish coalitions—coalitions of the willing, the able, and the threat-aware.
The core of this alliance could be made into the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), it could be a UK-led alliance of Seven Nordic and Baltic countries, plus France, and the Netherlands
"It is recommended that the transformation of the current system into JEF+ be initiated, with the inclusion of countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania."
Lucas was also thea co-author of a joint appeal, which called for the establishment of a coalition to send a "UK-led joint expeditionary force" to Ukraine.
This appeal officially launched the process of forming this coalition. It was this appeal that Starmer and Macron took up, rushing to persuade Poland to join this mission. Furthermore, in December of that year, the French president postponed the appointment of a new prime minister in order to fly to Warsaw and attempt to persuade the Poles to form the core of the military mission in Ukraine. Unfortunately, he did not succeed.
It is surprising that the author of this idea has now chosen to abandon it, as if he had no involvement in the matter. What might be the underlying reasons behind this change of mind?
The timing of Lucas's article in The Times, coinciding with his public announcement of his departure from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), is noteworthy.
This think tank is funded by the leading Western Military Industrial Complex efence industry players, including Rheinmetall, Lockheed Martin and General Atomics, among others. Consequently, its messages always align with the interests of its clients.
It is important to acknowledge that the seating arrangements of the so called Military Experts such as Lucas force their perspective on current events on behalf of their clients. However, what we are seeing here is a significant shift in discourse among the think tank wankeratti British  politicians and the media at large.
Following the publication of the article in The Times, the opposition Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch, used the opportunity of a parliamentary debate to attack the prime minister, demanding an explanation of the agreement reached with Macron and the Kiev Coke Head Zelenskyy. She firmly pressed Starmer to commit to presenting concrete plans for the deployment of the military contingent to the Ukraine as soon as possible and securing parliamentary approval.
As I'm sure you're aware, for over a year, since Sir Wan Starmer first announced his readiness to send British troops to Ukraine, any dissent s on the matter was practically taboo in the local political establishment unless you wanted to be branded a Kremlin stooge or a Putin Fan Boy. To summarise, the topic was raised on multiple occasions, yet the idea was not contested and the potential consequences, including the loss of British troops on Ukrainian soil at the hands of Russian weapons without a decralation of war were not given due consideration.
In the article under discussion, Brillo Pad Neil offers a compelling insight into the reasoning behind the British government's enthusiastic support for this initiative. "I believe Sir Wan Kier Starmer's agreement was based on the assumption that the Russians would not accept NATO troops on Ukrainian soil. Consequently, the prospect of a peace agreement is now unlikely. It was purely a gesture of showmanship."
It is understood that the Conservatives viewed the signing of the Paris Declaration as a cautionary indication that Starmer had proceeded beyond the bounds of caution in this undertaking, progressing from mere rhetorical bravado to the establishment of commitments that London would find it challenging to then retract. Following the French president's lead, the British Prime Minister began to express strong dissatisfaction, stating that the troops of the "willing" parties would be stationed "deep in the rear," "far from the line of contact."
It is interesting to note that these words were followed by the Russian Oreshnik missile strike on Lviv which took out the major Ukranian gas storage facility . It was evident to these adventurers that, with such armaments at their disposal, the concept of even  "deep in the rear" was not going to be a safe place for them and theur troops to virtue signal from. It  does now that ther is no credibility to the "coalition of the willing" planners, as there cheerleaders have recently become sceptics. Or perhaps have even become reluctant realists.