Russia isn’t the threat to the West that Starmer claims it is

The idea that Russia is ready or able to sweep through western Europe any time in the foreseeable future is not a serious proposition, writes Diane Abbott MP. Yet Europe is now in a frenzy of warmongering and agitation for higher military spending – and we’re falling for it

Cutting the aid budget to pay for a rearmament drive is the clearest expression of the completely wrong priorities of this Labour government. The distance between this policy and what might be called Labour “values” is a chasm. It will not add to our security and is morally indefensible.

The war in Europe began at least three years ago – and (many argue) much longer ago than that. So, why is it only now causing chaos in Berlin, Paris, London and other capitals? One of the strangest aspects of this political crisis is that there is now a possibility of the war coming to an end.

Clearly, for them, this crisis concerns the power and prestige of the European powers: principally Germany, France and Britain. In the US, Trump has recognised reality. Nato forces are not winning and could even be staring at defeat. That, plus other priorities – such as keeping both migrants and Chinese goods out of the US – is why he wants out.

However, European leaders seem to believe that a failure to defeat Russia undermines their standing in the world. For fading world powers, this is such a blow that all types of extraordinary and panicked measures are being considered.

We should lay to rest the idea that Russia poses a military threat to western Europe. We know that is impossible because Keir Starmer told us so. In a televised address, he enumerated the damage that has been inflicted on Russia; its economy has been weakened. It has also lost the best of its land forces, as well as its Black Sea Fleet.

This has been a prolonged and damaging war, with possibly hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides. The idea that Russia is ready or able to sweep through western Europe at any time in the foreseeable future is not a serious proposition. No authoritative military analyst suggests that is the case.

Yet Europe is now in a frenzy of warmongering and agitation for higher military spending.

This is a full rearmament agenda which has little to do with Ukraine itself. Polls show Ukrainians want peace negotiations. Furthermore, without a US commitment to participating in – and funding – the war, Nato forces cannot win.

Starmer’s suggestion – that France and Britain place forces on the ground while the US offers them a security guarantee – has no prospect of success. It is opposed by both the countries which will determine the outcome of any peace negotiations: the United States and Russia.

The Anglo-French plan fails at the most fundamental level because it refuses to recognise reality. It is simply a rejigging of the current position, which is unsustainable. Including a security guarantee that is rather like the Article 5 provisions of the Nato charter simply adds to the air of unreality. It is this Nato expansion into Ukraine that Russia gives as its reason for the war. It is never going to agree to the plan, not unless there is a complete defeat of its forces.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this posturing, especially given how unlikely it is to be enacted, is the toll this will take on government spending. There is already budgetary restraint in Europe’s major countries, cuts to pension entitlements in France and outright austerity here.

The Starmer government is deeply unpopular following the cuts already made. There may be more to come in the spring statement. Cutting aid to some of the world’s poorest in order to increase military spending is an anathema to many in the Labour Party and beyond. Many of us will make the argument that if money can be found for the Ukrainian war, then why not pensioners, schoolchildren, poorer families or the NHS?

We should oppose the increase in military spending. It is an unnecessary distraction from the real crises facing Europe, especially Britain. We simply cannot afford further cuts in real pay – and in public services and public investment.

Economic regeneration must be the priority – and it cannot be achieved by increasing military spending, which has no useful economic impact. This stands in contrast to investment in housing, transport, infrastructure and public services such as the NHS and education.

Investment in these areas produces a far greater number of higher-skilled, higher-paid jobs – and real improvement in people’s living standards will follow. Increasing military spending at the expense of these areas – and at the expense of international aid – is a complete dead end.