Britain’s Leadership Crisis at a Time of Global Peril

[Social Media]

 

At a moment when the world demands strong leadership, Britain finds itself with a government incapable of rising to the challenge. With Donald Trump shifting U.S. foreign policy away from supporting Ukraine and wrongly branding Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator,” the UK offers little more than performative outrage and hollow pledges it cannot afford. As Trump appears to cede too much ground to Russia, Britain remains powerless to intervene meaningfully. Meanwhile, Labour’s posturing cannot mask its own role in betraying Ukraine, aligning the UK’s political class with Europe’s freeloading elites.  

 

If Keir Starmer were truly committed to Western security and Kyiv’s survival, he would abandon his current political agenda. A bold leader would prioritize military rearmament akin to Britain’s 1934 efforts, revamp the nation’s defense industry, and stimulate economic growth. Starmer should dismantle the restrictive policies of Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband, suspend net zero initiatives to reduce energy costs, cut taxes, and push deregulation. Britain’s armed forces need urgent expansion, better procurement strategies, and a technological revolution in modern warfare.

 

Funding should shift away from an overextended welfare state and towards bolstering national defense, including revitalizing the nuclear deterrent. Given America’s renewed focus on free speech, he should also roll back Britain’s most draconian laws and reaffirm solidarity with the U.S. in global affairs. A genuine commitment to Western security would mean disengaging from China and preparing for inevitable trade disruptions.

 

A leader who took such decisive action could stand before Washington with confidence, acknowledging that while Trump is mistaken in his characterization of Ukraine, he is right to demand Europe contribute more to its own defense. Instead, Starmer is ill-suited for the role, his past as a radical human rights lawyer clouding his judgment, his worldview outdated, and his grasp of history, economics, and geopolitics woefully inadequate.  

No true wartime prime minister would undermine Britain’s armed forces by continuing the persecution of Northern Ireland veterans or surrendering the Chagos Islands—a critical military asset—to a Chinese-aligned state under the guise of “international law.” A serious leader would not prioritize welfare spending over military readiness while pretending that the post-Cold War “peace dividend” still exists. At a time when Britain’s military is historically underfunded—its army smaller per capita than at any point in the last 300 years, its navy short on ships, and its air force lacking modern aircraft and munitions—talk of deploying peacekeepers or fighter jets to Ukraine is delusional.  

 

The “liberal international order” began collapsing under Barack Obama, marked by Assad’s chemical attacks in 2013, Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the Iran nuclear deal. America’s role as the world’s stabilizer had already eroded before Trump. Why, then, did Britain continue hollowing out its military even as the global balance of power shifted? By the time Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Hamas attacked Israel in 2023, it was clear that the old world order was dead. Trump is simply confirming what should have been obvious.  

 

The post-Cold War illusion of American supremacy ended with 9/11 and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world has returned to an era of great powers carving up spheres of influence. Trump’s approach echoes the Monroe Doctrine, where the fate of smaller nations is determined by global superpowers, just as Eastern Europe was at Yalta in 1945. The Atlantic Charter, which once upheld self-determination, is now forgotten, replaced by a new era of imperialist deal-making—whether through Trump’s transactional approach with Ukraine or China’s expansionist Belt and Road Initiative.  

 

Historically, America has been slow to act in global conflicts—it did not enter World War I until 1917 and only joined World War II after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Expecting the U.S. to intervene in every European crisis is unrealistic. Britain and its allies should have recognized this and invested in defense long ago. NATO was never meant to serve as Europe’s means of relying on American military protection without contribution.  

 

Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine should compensate the U.S. with raw materials for its support may be unpalatable, but it is not without precedent. America’s foreign assistance has often come with strings attached, whether in the form of decolonization demands, financial leverage, or access to resources. The Gulf Wars, too, were fought on the basis of U.S. strategic interests, whether oil security or retaliation for 9/11. Now, as the U.S. pivots to countering China’s growing influence in the Pacific, Russia is seen as Europe’s problem to handle alone.  

 

Labour’s reluctance to raise defense spending beyond 2.3% of GDP—despite calls to reach 2.5%—is morally indefensible. Poland, facing a direct threat from Russia, is investing 4.7% of its GDP in defense, even at the cost of a budget deficit. It has over 200,000 troops, more than any NATO member besides the U.S. and Turkey. That is a genuine commitment to security. If Poland can do it, why can’t Britain? Does the government’s rhetoric about standing with Ukraine amount to nothing more than empty words?  

 

At a time of global instability, Britain is saddled with the weakest possible leadership. Starmer’s government lacks vision, conviction, and the courage to prepare for the harsh realities ahead. In a dangerous world, Britain needs strength—not excuses.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph  2025-02-21

 

 

[DonniePeverley]

Yawn.

 

Britiain along with France have nuclear arms. No one is going anywhere near them ... unless they want mutual destruction also. 

[beautifulthailand99]

No thanks those that want a GoFundMe be my guest.

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

No true wartime prime minister would undermine Britain’s armed forces by continuing the persecution of Northern Ireland veterans or surrendering the Chagos Islands—a critical military asset—to a Chinese-aligned state under the guise of “international law.”

Never upset the Chinese comrades, after all there's plans for Chinese Mega-Embassy in London.

[newbee2022]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

revamp the nation’s defense industry, and stimulate economic growth.

More arms means more economic  growth??? 

UK can do much better by combined forces (military and economically) with EU.

[newbee2022]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Starmer is ill-suited for the role, his past as a radical human rights lawyer clouding his judgment, his worldview outdated,

Could it be that YOU got a clouded view?

In my opinion Starmer does a good job. To be a blind ally following the maga leader is not prosperous for UK. Strengthen the ties with EU is priority to make EU great again. Or do you want to become the property of POTUS?

[JonnyF]

Leadership? What leadership? i don't see any leadership.

 

All I see is an ill prepared melt getting found out at every turn.

 

How about you stand up and fight Keir? Oh wait a minute.

 

 

[Thingamabob]

Brits have suffered under mostly rubbish governments ever since the end of WW2.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Brits have suffered under mostly rubbish governments ever since the end of WW2.

In part due to the inability to get over their WW2 myths.

 

 

[Social Media]

@Chomper Higgot your repetitive snarky remarks about the Telegraph are getting tedious. It stops now or I will stop it for you. 

 

17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles  may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW.

If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

[shackleton]

The UK is a broken country 

Calling us a Global Britain is beyond words our armed forces are at  the lowest in numbers for years

If it was not for the nuclear deterrent the UK would not have a place at the top table 

Our influence on the World stage is waining 

See what happens when sir Kieth Starmer meets The Donald Trump on Ukraine 

[henryford1958]

Even the arch appeaser Chamberlain knew Britain had to rearm quickly in the 1930s. Now we have a bunch of jokers in charge who think Putin will just go away.

[Thingamabob]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In part due to the inability to get over their WW2 myths.

 

 

Interesting. What myths ?

[trainman34014]

What Leadership ?    The Country has become Rudderless and is floating in a Sea of Sharks; and that incudes Trump who is only interested in himself being the all powerful Messiah.   He couldn't care less about the American People or anyone else unless they want to contrubute to the Trump Fund !

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In part due to the inability to get over their WW2 myths.

 

 

 

More Brit hating nonsense. 

[billd766]

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

At a moment when the world demands strong leadership, Britain finds itself with a government incapable of rising to the challenge. With Donald Trump shifting U.S. foreign policy away from supporting Ukraine and wrongly branding Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator,” the UK offers little more than performative outrage and hollow pledges it cannot afford. As Trump appears to cede too much ground to Russia, Britain remains powerless to intervene meaningfully. Meanwhile, Labour’s posturing cannot mask its own role in betraying Ukraine, aligning the UK’s political class with Europe’s freeloading elites.  

 

If Keir Starmer were truly committed to Western security and Kyiv’s survival, he would abandon his current political agenda. A bold leader would prioritize military rearmament akin to Britain’s 1934 efforts, revamp the nation’s defense industry, and stimulate economic growth. Starmer should dismantle the restrictive policies of Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband, suspend net zero initiatives to reduce energy costs, cut taxes, and push deregulation. Britain’s armed forces need urgent expansion, better procurement strategies, and a technological revolution in modern warfare.

 

Funding should shift away from an overextended welfare state and towards bolstering national defense, including revitalizing the nuclear deterrent. Given America’s renewed focus on free speech, he should also roll back Britain’s most draconian laws and reaffirm solidarity with the U.S. in global affairs. A genuine commitment to Western security would mean disengaging from China and preparing for inevitable trade disruptions.

 

A leader who took such decisive action could stand before Washington with confidence, acknowledging that while Trump is mistaken in his characterization of Ukraine, he is right to demand Europe contribute more to its own defense. Instead, Starmer is ill-suited for the role, his past as a radical human rights lawyer clouding his judgment, his worldview outdated, and his grasp of history, economics, and geopolitics woefully inadequate.  

No true wartime prime minister would undermine Britain’s armed forces by continuing the persecution of Northern Ireland veterans or surrendering the Chagos Islands—a critical military asset—to a Chinese-aligned state under the guise of “international law.” A serious leader would not prioritize welfare spending over military readiness while pretending that the post-Cold War “peace dividend” still exists. At a time when Britain’s military is historically underfunded—its army smaller per capita than at any point in the last 300 years, its navy short on ships, and its air force lacking modern aircraft and munitions—talk of deploying peacekeepers or fighter jets to Ukraine is delusional.  

 

The “liberal international order” began collapsing under Barack Obama, marked by Assad’s chemical attacks in 2013, Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the Iran nuclear deal. America’s role as the world’s stabilizer had already eroded before Trump. Why, then, did Britain continue hollowing out its military even as the global balance of power shifted? By the time Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Hamas attacked Israel in 2023, it was clear that the old world order was dead. Trump is simply confirming what should have been obvious.  

 

The post-Cold War illusion of American supremacy ended with 9/11 and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world has returned to an era of great powers carving up spheres of influence. Trump’s approach echoes the Monroe Doctrine, where the fate of smaller nations is determined by global superpowers, just as Eastern Europe was at Yalta in 1945. The Atlantic Charter, which once upheld self-determination, is now forgotten, replaced by a new era of imperialist deal-making—whether through Trump’s transactional approach with Ukraine or China’s expansionist Belt and Road Initiative.  

 

Historically, America has been slow to act in global conflicts—it did not enter World War I until 1917 and only joined World War II after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Expecting the U.S. to intervene in every European crisis is unrealistic. Britain and its allies should have recognized this and invested in defense long ago. NATO was never meant to serve as Europe’s means of relying on American military protection without contribution.  

 

Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine should compensate the U.S. with raw materials for its support may be unpalatable, but it is not without precedent. America’s foreign assistance has often come with strings attached, whether in the form of decolonization demands, financial leverage, or access to resources. The Gulf Wars, too, were fought on the basis of U.S. strategic interests, whether oil security or retaliation for 9/11. Now, as the U.S. pivots to countering China’s growing influence in the Pacific, Russia is seen as Europe’s problem to handle alone.  

 

Labour’s reluctance to raise defense spending beyond 2.3% of GDP—despite calls to reach 2.5%—is morally indefensible. Poland, facing a direct threat from Russia, is investing 4.7% of its GDP in defense, even at the cost of a budget deficit. It has over 200,000 troops, more than any NATO member besides the U.S. and Turkey. That is a genuine commitment to security. If Poland can do it, why can’t Britain? Does the government’s rhetoric about standing with Ukraine amount to nothing more than empty words?  

 

At a time of global instability, Britain is saddled with the weakest possible leadership. Starmer’s government lacks vision, conviction, and the courage to prepare for the harsh realities ahead. In a dangerous world, Britain needs strength—not excuses.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph  2025-02-21

 

 

Well said, Captain Mainwaring of the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard.

[norfolkandchance]

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Well said, Captain Mainwaring of the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard.

L/Cpl Jones got his promotion to Full Screw then.

[chilly07]

Is Trump writing editorials now or is this Putin's AI? 

[spidermike007]

I think the same can be said about the US, and America's leadership crisis at a time of global peril.

 

Donald Trump is making the world an infinitely more dangerous place. Time will bear that out. He is not a man of peace he is a man of hatred, discord, irrationality, and venom. 

[RayC]

11 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

More arms means more economic  growth??? 

UK can do much better by combined forces (military and economically) with EU.

 

How very dare you. The whole point of Brexit was to pull up the drawbridge and have nothing to do with the dastardly Europeans.

 

You and your sensible suggestions. What's the world coming to?

[newbee2022]

45 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

How very dare you. The whole point of Brexit was to pull up the drawbridge and have nothing to do with the dastardly Europeans.

 

You and your sensible suggestions. What's the world coming to?

I like your sarcastic reply.

However, what do you think UK can defend with 70.000 soldiers? Charley's bedroom?🤗

[RayC]

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I like your sarcastic reply.

However, what do you think UK can defend with 70.000 soldiers? Charley's bedroom?🤗

 

Very little. I agree with your sentiments. A co-ordinated EU + UK defence strategy is needed.

 

However, it will not be plain sailing for any UK PM to achieve to get this accepted, such is the irrational loathing of Europe by some factions in the UK.

[newbee2022]

Just now, RayC said:

 

Very little. I agree with your sentiments. A co-ordinated EU + UK defence strategy is needed.

 

However, it will not be plain sailing for any UK PM to achieve to get this accepted, such is the irrational loathing of Europe by some factions in the UK.

They all have to join. And it will happen because it's about survival of Europe.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

They all have to join. And it will happen because it's about survival of Europe.

 

I wish I shared your optimism. 

[DonniePeverley]

17 hours ago, shackleton said:

The UK is a broken country 

Calling us a Global Britain is beyond words our armed forces are at  the lowest in numbers for years

If it was not for the nuclear deterrent the UK would not have a place at the top table 

Our influence on the World stage is waining 

See what happens when sir Kieth Starmer meets The Donald Trump on Ukraine 

 

 

My neice and nephew just enrolled in one of the most prestigious universities in the world in Warwick, doing law. No crippling fees for them, and even then a small fraction paid back once they start earning big. Free health care. Dentistry subsidised. Clean air. Relatively safe. Good job opportunies. Great countryside. One of thee best capital cities in the world. 

 

No country is perfect. It may have awful weather, it may not be doing well economically at the moment. But it's still a fantastic country and you should thank yourself lucky you were born there. 

 

You ask a Thai person if they want to go to move to the UK - 100% would bite your arm off. 

[DonniePeverley]

8 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I like your sarcastic reply.

However, what do you think UK can defend with 70.000 soldiers? Charley's bedroom?🤗

 

No one would be foolish enough to attack the UK or any of the other 6 nuclear powers. 

 

Even if the UK had no troops, simply the threat of nuclear weapons would deter virtually every country. Even if a fellow nuclear country wanted to attack the UK, it would be mutal destruction - so what would be the point ?

[newbee2022]

2 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

 

My neice and nephew just enrolled in one of the most prestigious universities in the world in Warwick, doing law. No crippling fees for them, and even then a small fraction paid back once they start earning big. Free health care. Dentistry subsidised. Clean air. Relatively safe. Good job opportunies. Great countryside. One of thee best capital cities in the world. 

 

No country is perfect. It may have awful weather, it may not be doing well economically at the moment. But it's still a fantastic country and you should thank yourself lucky you were born there. 

 

You ask a Thai person if they want to go to move to the UK - 100% would bite your arm off. 

Donnie in wonderland 🤣. Take off your shades, mate😱

[DonniePeverley]

6 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Donnie in wonderland 🤣. Take off your shades, mate😱

 

 

Tell me the issues you have with the UK. Furthermore just answer me this - ask any Thai if they would want to move to the UK and live there. Tell me why everyone would say yes?

 

You knock the UK, but the freedoms and finances it has bought you has allowed to travel/live abroad in Thailand. Never forget that.

[newbee2022]

3 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

 

Tell me the issues you have with the UK. Furthermore just answer me this - ask any Thai if they would want to move to the UK and live there. Tell me why everyone would say yes?

 

You knock the UK, but the freedoms and finances it has bought you has allowed to travel/live abroad in Thailand. Never forget that.

Indeed I asked Thai friends and showed photos of  wonderful Blackpool with more wonderful back streets and wonderful big rats.

Nobody, nobody wants to live there.

Me too.