Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Starmer needs to recalibrate the mood

LABOUR PARTY

ELECTED to office less than three months ago, the Labour Party has begun its annual conference – this year in Liverpool – already weighed down by incumbency: rows over gifts from wealthy party donors and tickets to football games as well as rifts about Keir Starmer’s chief of staff’s pay are feeding into the public disquiet. These come amidst the burden of government in difficult economic circumstances. Coupled with the low public trust and the needless surplus of gloom, the political honeymoon period for Labour is well and truly over. We knew change was high up on the political agenda for Labour, but since day one of government it has set out with the explicit objective of dampening expectations of how soon change might come. The gloom is palpable.

There is a degree of urgency for Starmer to recalibrate the mood with a sense of optimism and purpose. He needs to give the country reasons to be glad of a Labour government in ways that go beyond relief at no longer being governed by Tory rule. New governments often come to power blaming the last for what it has inherited. The PM has given the nation an unvarnished account of the dismal legacy left for Labour; a bleak audit that covers a record of political and financial maladministration.

Conservative ministers, driven by ideological fanaticism and self-serving cynicism, squandered energy and vital resources on ill-conceived, unworkable policies. Public services were starved of the means by which they could effectively operate. With that in mind, it is easy to see that Sir Keir has a difficult job because the country is in a dire mess. Putting things right will take time. Nevertheless, that morose message has been bitterly soured by a performance of fiscal discipline, delivered without a hint of uplifting accompaniment.

The prime minister says things will get worse before they get better. His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, cites “black holes” in the budget, withdraws winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners, and continually pledges that there is more pain to come. Ms Reeves’ argument is that government departments under the Conservatives overspent by £22bn in the budget and that deep cuts are needed to compensate. This is a self-imposed restriction that stems from ill-advised fiscal rules. The force of that constraint, and the zeal with which it is applied as austerity across Whitehall, is also a matter of political choice.

The government’s strategists argue that adherence to Tory spending limits was a “non-negotiable” condition of persuading the public that Labour could be trusted on the economy. Possibly, possibly not. There is no way to test the counterfactual scenario, where Ms Reeves could have fought the election with a wider range of tax-raising options still open. However, the decision to lean into unpopularity so hard, so fast, and without a countervailing narrative of hope looks like very poor strategic judgment.

Labour’s election manifesto contained plenty of reasons to expect a substantial departure from a grim status quo. A marked progressive shift was promised in the areas of workers’ rights, a robust commitment to net zero, improved relations with the rest of Europe and, perhaps most significantly, readiness to embrace a more interventionist model of economic management, including public ownership of utility companies.

The Starmerite script contains rather too much fiscal conservatism, but the hope on the left of the party is that there is a social democratic framework at its core. That would express the opposite of the Tory conviction that government’s main function is to facilitate market supremacy and then get out of the way. Many Labour MPs, activists, and Labour supporting people in the country will feel unsure which of the two strands – cringing continuity or bold departure – will dominate. Keir Starmer’s task is to answer in terms that give hope of meaningful change to come.

Standard
Britain, Government, Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Kyiv missile deal edges closer

STORM SHADOW

THE visit by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and his US counterpart Antony Blinken to battle-ravaged Ukraine in reaffirming their commitment was timely. The pair announced millions more in aid, which was welcomed, but if Ukraine is to stand any chance in defeating Putin, the West must still go further. 

It is now pressing to permit Kyiv to use US and British long-range missiles to pulverise targets deep inside Russian territory. This would allow it to strike air bases which are used to launch devastating and indiscriminate attacks against Ukraine.

The current restrictions on Ukraine using Western long-range missiles – imposed amid fears of provoking the Kremlin – are iniquitous and show timidity.

However, the mood is changing as both the US and UK have accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of escalating the war by seeking missiles from Iran.

Allowing Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles would mark a major step up in capability, as they have a range of more than 155 miles. By contrast, the US-supplied Himars missiles currently being used have a range of just 50 miles. A longer-range capability would enable Ukrainian pilots to remain further from the front lines, as missiles such as Storm Shadow would penetrate much deeper inside Russian territory.

Storm Shadow is a precision-guided cruise missile with a maximum range of up to 200 miles. It has a multi-stage warhead with the initial detonation used to destroy bunkers. The main warhead is controlled by a delayed fuse which destroys whatever is being protected inside a fortified position.

It is “air-launched” and can be released from a safe distance. It travels at a low altitude to avoid radar detection and uses an infra-red seeker to latch on to its target. In May 2023, the UK confirmed it had donated a number of the missiles to Ukraine – but with the proviso that they only be used on Russian targets on Ukrainian sovereign territory.

Ukraine’s president wants Storm Shadow to destroy airfields and command and control centres deep inside Russia. President Zelensky needs to eradicate the threat posed by Russian glide bombs; he wants to strike wherever the aircraft that carry them are based. An accurate, long-range missile arsenal could also directly target Russian supply lines into eastern Ukraine and through territory surrounding Kursk province, which Ukrainian soldiers have successfully penetrated and defended.

However, the view in Washington and, to a lesser extent in London, has been precautionary. Permitting Storm Shadow to be used against targets deep inside Russia could be perceived as escalatory. The US and UK would much prefer to encourage Ukraine and Russia to reach a negotiated settlement. They would prefer, too, for Ukraine to develop its own long-range missiles, thereby avoiding further potential Western fallout with the Kremlin.

Financial reasons are also a significant factor. At £2million each, Storm Shadows aren’t cheap. Supply of them is far from infinite and Ukraine would likely use up the missiles in a short time. Also, they contain highly sensitive technologies which, should the Russians obtain them, could reduce the strategic effectiveness of Storm Shadow in the future.

Mr Blinken has said the United States is adapting to change, including how conditions on the battlefield are changing. With Russia having acquired Iranian ballistic missiles, this must surely be justification for the US to lift its restrictions. Ukraine has the right to defend itself. Nonetheless, complicating matters is that the Biden presidency has only months to run, with Donald Trump making clear he will push for a settlement in days if he wins the November election. Any such deal would likely require Ukraine to concede territory.

So, Kyiv must hold on to as much ground as it can, including areas it occupies in southern Russia. It is now or never for Storm Shadow to make a difference.

Standard
Britain, China, Government, Intelligence, Middle East, Russia, Society, United States

Spy chiefs give joint-interview at Festival

US-UK INTELLIGENCE

IN a rare public appearance, Richard Moore, the head of MI6, has warned that Russia’s intelligence services have become “feral” and “reckless” in the way they are plotting attacks in Britain and across Europe.

In an historic joint interview with the head of the CIA, Mr Moore said Moscow is now using criminal gangs for state-sponsored terror attacks in Europe. The attacks are “more amateurish” and are endangering more lives.

His CIA counterpart William Burns said coordinated operations between UK and US intelligence services are thwarting the plots across the Continent and in mainland Britain. The intelligence chiefs were appearing before a Festival in north London, where they spoke of the long-standing relationship between MI6 and the CIA.

Mr Burns also revealed how the CIA feared Vladimir Putin was going to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine in the autumn of 2022, after falsely accusing Volodymyr Zelensky of amassing nuclear materials for such an attack against his troops.

The CIA chief also said 90 per cent of a new peace deal between Israel and Hamas is complete, adding that its details may be published in the “next few days”.

Mr Moore, known as C by his officers, spoke about how the two services often conduct intelligence operations together. “We will sometimes decide who is better-placed to go first – we call it the best athlete model. Whoever is best placed to do it, we work in a non-competitive way to get the result,” he said.

The MI6 boss said Russia’s intelligence services have conducted sabotage and criminal acts in Britain and in Europe, becoming “a lot more feral”. He added: “The fact they are using a criminal element shows they are becoming a bit desperate – they can’t use their own people. They’re happy to use criminals. It’s just a bit more reckless.”

Mr Moore referred to an arson attack in Leyton, east London, on a Ukraine-linked business, which is suspected of being directed by Moscow. Two men have since been charged for helping Russian intelligence after the Metropolitan Police used terrorism powers to investigate.

He also said the Salisbury poisoning in 2018 was “emblematic” of the recklessness of Russian agents.

“They left a large phial of a deadly poison lying around to be picked up,” he said. “It could have killed an entire school – in fact, it killed an innocent British civilian.”

Two Russian agents daubed Novichok nerve agent on the doorknob of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, which nearly killed him and his daughter. But the perfume bottle with the poison in it was later picked up by a woman, who later died.

Speaking publicly for the first time about how the CIA feared Russia was close to using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine months into the conflict, Mr Burns said: “There was a moment in the fall of 2022 that I think there was a genuine risk of potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. I felt we should not be intimidated by Putin.”

He was dispatched to the Turkish capital Ankara to tell the head of the FSB, Sergei Naryshkin, how the West would respond “militarily” if Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The CIA chief said: “We cannot afford to be intimidated by that sabre-rattling and bullying. The record shows the United States has provided enormous support to Ukraine, and I’m sure we’ll continue to.”

Mr Burns has been intimately involved in the difficult negotiations in the Middle East between Hamas and Israel, with Qatar and Egypt acting as intermediaries.

He said 90 per cent of a peace deal is complete, adding: “The last 10 per cent is the last 10 per cent for a reason… it’s the hardest part to do. But we will make this more detailed proposal, I hope in the next several days, then we’ll see.”

And he warned that Hamas cannot be entirely defeated. “You can severely degrade their military capabilities, but it is a movement and an idea, and the way you kill an idea is with a better idea.”

The intelligence chiefs – who gave a public interview to the editor of the Financial Times on the grounds of Kenwood House in Hampstead – said China was their main preoccupation, with 20 per cent of the CIA’s resources being devoted to the Beijing regime.

Standard