Britain’s tabloid press loves to muse which party the Kremlin prefers in charge at Westminster. For years, it was thought to be a far-right party of different incarnations: Reform, UKIP, the Brexit Party, all led by Nigel Farage. The line of argument was that this disruptive force would undermine the British state, make it weaker and benefit Russian foreign policy.
There is just one problem with this argument, however: it is ludicrous. Reform and UKIP were not going to win any of the previous elections and their chances at the next one are bleaker still. The British electoral system of first past the post will not allow it unless the Conservative Party somehow collapses (it is a long way from death). Riding this high in the polls (currently 25%) means they have a long way to fall before then.
Another theory has, rather oddly, been the Conservative Party. Ahead of the 2015 election it was written that the Conservatives are a known evil in Russia, and thus, there is no expectation that things could possibly get any worse between the two nations. That comment has aged very poorly.
If history tells us anything, it might be The Labour Party, now in power for nine months. UK-Russia relations flourished under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and during Soviet times, Labour always struck a more conciliatory tone towards Moscow. It helped that socialist thinkers always tried to learn from the first communist state (the good and bad elements).
But The old Trotskyist left no longer occupies the core of Britain’s Labour Party, let alone its fringes, and the communist state is no more and Labour has not had a ‘Russia’ policy since the Blair-Brown years. Starmer does not have the luxury of ignoring Russia any longer.
Starmer really cannot make things worse and circumstances may force him to patch things up (on the quiet). He acknowledged late last year that the war in Ukraine was coming to an end. When it does, Starmer can only continue to ignore Russia for so long and there is little more he can actually do for Ukraine. True, British construction companies will be lining up to help rebuild Ukraine. But Britain also has a housing crisis and Labour made many bold campaign promises.
Starmer is playing with an empty hand when it comes to promising British troops in Ukraine. It was obvious from the beginning that the premise of British troops rested on the Europeans joining him in doing so. More so, and to quote former British army chief Lord Dannatt, Britain’s armed forces are so run down that they could not lead any peacekeeping mission.
The entire deployable force that Britain has is a mere 56,000 – compared to 1.1 million Ukrainians currently fighting. If – and it is a big if – Britain were to deploy troops to Ukraine, it could barely hope to muster 1% of that figure. That is before the UK considers how much more money it wants to increase its defense spending by, another priority for Starmer.
Further, NATO membership for Ukraine is dead. What purpose British troops would serve is unclear. Even further, neither Britain nor Europe can afford to bankroll Ukraine’s military for the rest of the year. Even more certain is that Putin, as part of any peace deal, will simply not accept NATO troops as peacekeepers in Ukraine. It is the most fundamental and bright red line the Kremlin has drawn.
Starmer has few realistic options other than gestures, much like his hundred year partnership with Ukraine earlier this year. There were no specifics, only ‘shoulds’, ‘encouraged’ and other vague language. But that is also true when it comes to Russia. He cannot rule out sanctions relief or go against President Trump at this time, he can but only offer harsh rhetoric.
Starmer could actually give the UK an economic boost by lifting certain sanctions. UK-Russia trade was worth several billion pounds before 2022. Last year, it was just £2 billion and Russia fell to its 68th largest trading partner. To put it bluntly, it really could not get any worse.
Sometimes politics is simple. Britons want cheaper energy bills. Achieving that with Russian gas will increase consumer confidence, which would get Britain’s stubbornly sluggish economy moving – and gives Labour some of the cash it needs for underperforming public services. Allowing key industries, such as finance, automotives and whiskey to continue would be a huge boost to both countries.
But it is also reality, not just politics. The Russian market is massive and lucrative for the UK – it always has been. Several British companies are already exploring a return to the Russian market. Why not let them? Tax increases will soon happen in Britain, and they are necessary. But why let the British economy stagnate when easy options are available?
The tough rhetoric will, of course, continue in large part because it is easy. Russia is an easy bogeyman. But so too is England in the Russian media. So much so that it is almost a formality now to just attack each other.
The UK’s dilemma with Russia and Ukraine is simple. It wants to support Ukraine, but it is unable to do so in a way that matches its rhetoric. It also wants to cast Russia aside, but doing so is not possible politically or economically. How does the UK increase defense spending specifically to protect Ukraine against Russia? It cannot.
