Starmer's failed attempt to precipitate World War III

I'm repeating below an article I wrote on X on 13 September, while Keir Starmer was fruitlessly asking Joe Biden for permission to use Storm Shadow missiles in Russia. The argument still holds true in my opinion, and I elaborated a little during my interview yesterday with Alex Chrstoforou and Alexander Mercouris on their Duran Podcast.

I've also copied her my recent interview with the very nice Kelley Vlahos, the Senior Advisor and Editorial Director at Responsible Statecraft in the US. In this interview, filmed before Starmer's arrival in Washington, I correctly predict that he won't get the permission he sought to take the world closer to World War III. Thank God I was right (for now)!

13September 2024

The first confirmed use of ATACMS, Storm Shadow or Scalp inside of Russia would provoke a Russian military strike against a western military target. We should step back from this new missile crisis and push for a negotiated ceasefire.

When Sir Keir Starmer meets Joe Biden today he will be seeking weapons free to use Storm Shadow missiles inside of Russia. That comes as no surprise. Britain has been militarily the most hawkish adversary of Russia in the Ukraine proxy war. It would, however, be a mistake for Biden to cede to Britain's demands, because it will provoke a military escalation against those NATO states that engage in the use of western weapons in Russia, including the US.

Russia has warned consistently of the risk of escalation and, therefore, retaliation. Yes, Russia has been using its weapons against cities in Ukraine since the war started. But from their perspective, the war in Ukraine has remained largely a war between two opposing sides, even if each side has received materiel support from other countries.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. That is how the Russians frame their rules of engagement. They would view any use of western weapons, that rely of US systems and

#intelligence  in order to function, as a direct act of war by the participating countries.

How Russia might respond

Following the first confirmed use of a western supplied missile inside of Russian territory, I assess Russia will launch a targeted conventional strike on a US and UK military asset, including possibly in either country or in one of their overseas facilities (#guam

, #diegogarcia etc).

I judge Russia would be careful in targeting a military facility to minimise the risk of civilian casualties in #NATO states.

As the Russians are highly reciprocal in how they act, I consider the risk of a tactical nuclear escalation as low, at least in the short term.

Russia will also fear the risk of escalation leading to a general war which Russia would not be able to win against a much more powerful NATO and which, therefore, would take us a step closer to all out #NuclearWar.

They will also worry about the impact of a disproportionate nuclear escalation on its diplomatic relations in the wider world, in particular with China.

While cyber attacks are a constant risk, I judge Russia would want a retaliation that was attributable and which they could use in their communications.

Why Putin will have to act

It would be suicide politically for Putin to say that he will act, but then allow months to pass with inaction as British missiles rain down on Russian targets. It is a fantasy to think that he will do nothing.

A weapons free signal to use Storm Shadow means that these missiles will strike Russian targets at will for the remainder of this war, and no one has a plan for when the war will end. Both the US and the UK are signalling that they are in this for the long haul.

And, given the intense internal pressure he will be under - not necessarily from the Russian public - but from the hawkish parts of his inner circle, it would be politically too damaging for Putin not to respond militarily.

The political risk to Starmer

For Starmer, the risk is that having beaten his chest and somehow appeared more war mongering that Boris Johnson, he will look weak if he backs down now. He is gambling on calling Putin's bluff i.e. that having said he would retaliate Putin would, nevertheless, backdown. However, that is foolish, and driven by the British government's lack of Russia expertise.

If Starmer succeeds in getting Biden's approval, then hot on the heels of a disastrous start to his premiership, he may have to explain why Russian missiles are hitting British military targets, potentially in the UK itself. Which may force him to escalate militarily, or back down and look weak and inept domestically.

The risk for Biden

Biden risks dragging the US into a direct military conflict with the world's biggest nuclear power, the outcome of which he cannot predict, just two months before an election. There won't be the time for the US to emerge victorious over Russia so that Kamala Harris gets some sort of election boost from victory. More likely, American service personnel will die.

The Times has already reported that while Biden may permit the use of UK and French cruise missiles, he may nevertheless not agree to the use of ATACMS inside of Russian territory.

Pro-war advocates like Jake Sullivan will believe this hedges the risk of a Russian retaliation against America. But that assessment is also false. Russia has said repeatedly that the use of British and French missiles is only possible with the direct assistance and participation of US assets.

Conclusion

We have entered a crisis as serious as when Khrushchev sent nuclear weapons to Cuba. Right now, lofted up by hubris and an underestimation of the risk to global peace and security, Starmer is going cap in hand to the White House. The risks to him politically, whatever happens, seem overwhelmingly negative. But right now, I'm more worried about the risk to humanity.

Starmer should be pressing for a negotiated end to the fighting in Ukraine, not taking us one step closer to nuclear catastrophe.