Starmer’s reckless war talk ignores Britain’s economic ruin and military collapse. Who will fight his war?

Sir Keir Starmer fancies himself a wartime leader, a statesman of Churchillian stature. But in reality, Britain is in no position to play global superpower. His latest pledge to put British “boots on the ground” in Ukraine is as reckless as it is delusional. Who will wear those boots? Where will they come from? And most importantly, how will we afford it?

While Starmer struts on the world stage, Britain is falling apart at home. The economy is teetering, businesses are struggling, and the tax burden is the highest in 70 years. Even as he boasts about sending troops into Ukraine, shopkeepers in Essex are wondering how they’ll afford the next wage hike. The local butcher has had his worst sales day in decades. Waitrose is cutting staff hours. Small business owners, already drowning in taxes, are bracing for April’s wage increases. Yet, instead of fixing Britain’s woes, Starmer is focused on a war we cannot fight.

And let’s be clear: we cannot fight it. The British Army is a shell of its former self. We have fewer than 75,000 regular troops. Our Navy is stretched thin, barely able to deploy its own aircraft carriers. Soldiers are begging the Americans for decent rations. One Royal Marine recently returned from Ukraine training missions bluntly admitted: “It’s a lost cause.”

Even if Britain had the forces, we don’t have the industrial backbone to sustain a war. Port Talbot, the last steelworks capable of producing high-grade military steel, has been sacrificed on the altar of net zero. Now, Starmer expects Britain to buy war materials from China or India—countries that conveniently remain friendly with Russia.

Meanwhile, Poland—Europe’s top defence spender—has categorically refused to send troops. Germany remains reluctant. So who does Starmer imagine will join his grand “coalition of the willing”? A few Dutch soldiers and some French troops who’ll pause for a three-course lunch while our men eat crisps in a tank?

Britain’s defence failures are years in the making. For decades, the political class has hollowed out the armed forces while waving through unchecked migration. Last year alone, 162,000 migrants received settled status—more than Britain’s entire standing army. On Sunday, another 600 illegal arrivals crossed the Channel. At this rate, the number of undocumented men in Britain will soon outnumber the troops Starmer wants to send into Ukraine.

And what of America? The prime minister insists Britain will only act with “strong US backing.” But Donald Trump has made it crystal clear—no American boots will be stepping into Ukraine. So what exactly is Starmer doing? Playing tough for the cameras? Sending British troops into an unwinnable war while our allies sit back and watch?

Even if Ukraine’s plight is tragic, Starmer’s posturing is not leadership—it’s a desperate distraction. He sees his popularity falling, recession looming, and Britain in turmoil. So, like Tony Blair before him, he turns to war. The last time a British PM invoked a “coalition of the willing,” it led to Iraq—an intervention whose consequences still haunt us today.

There is one simple question every British citizen must ask themselves: Are you willing to send your sons and daughters to die for the Donbas?

For most, the answer is a resounding no.