The British Prime Minister is considering deploying troops to Ukraine, a move unlikely to be supported by his own citizens who feel ignored and alienated.
Following the Munich Security Conference, EU leaders seemed taken aback by US Vice President J.D. Vance’s sharp criticism of Europe.
Vance cited issues like restrictions on free speech, arrests for inflammatory social media posts, insufficient commitment to security, and instability caused by migration as reasons for his critique. While seemingly directed at Western European politicians, his message likely targeted the public, resonating with widespread dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice among ordinary citizens.
Western European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, appeared uneasy with Washington’s tone. Vance’s blunt remarks may have prompted them to reconsider the underfunding of their armed forces, as he emphasized the unsustainability of relying on the US for military and financial aid, particularly concerning the Russia-Ukraine war. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky also responded to this message, calling for a ‘European Armed Force’. In response, Western European leaders convened an emergency meeting in Paris hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, where Starmer surprisingly suggested the potential deployment of British soldiers to Ukraine to enforce a peace agreement.
The British public and Parliament were surprised by what many perceived as a rash suggestion from their Prime Minister. The possibility of “British boots on the ground” was announced shortly after the Munich meeting. This decision, or threat, seems to be a unilateral action by Starmer, unlikely to garner widespread support and already provoking outrage, especially in the “Red Wall” regions – Britain’s former industrial centers. A poll in The Times indicated that only 11% of young people in the UK would consider fighting for their country, highlighting deep divisions within the UK based on class, race, and region.
This poses a challenge for Starmer and British liberals, who are again advocating for military action after the disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The de-industrialized regions, once Labour strongholds, have historically been the primary recruiting grounds for the British Army, drawing from the white working class. These communities feel betrayed by politicians and are increasingly disconnected from the politics, media, and elite circles of London.
It is noteworthy that the individuals pushing for military intervention in London are the same ones who supported the Iraq invasion and opposed the Brexit referendum. A clear division has persisted since Brexit, and Starmer’s proposal to offer the military for EU “peacekeeping” suggests a desire for closer ties with the bloc. However, Starmer’s brand of Labour – middle-class metropolitan liberals – will not sacrifice their own children for military service and will instead turn to the very people they have spent the nine years since the Brexit referendum accusing of being racists, bigots, and xenophobes.
Starmer and Macron face low approval ratings in their respective countries. They may believe that they can mask the damage inflicted by successive neo-liberal governments by appealing to patriotism through the threat of war. However, Starmer must realize that this will not be his Falklands War moment, unlike Margaret Thatcher’s government, which reversed its unpopularity by going to war with Argentina in 1982. Working-class populations outside major metropolitan areas, in places like Blyth, Sunderland, Mansfield, and Stoke-on-Trent, have traditionally been patriotic and supportive of the British military, but they are unlikely to follow Starmer and the failing EU leaders into a battle they deem irrelevant to their interests.
The lesson for Western European political leaders is that neglecting segments of the population, allowing deep divisions and inequalities to persist, and then expecting the working class to fight a war is a strategy that will fail. People see through this, and Vance’s words resonated more powerfully than any message from a European elite class.