The British elite can best be described as the Labradoodle of America. Because while it has long been a cliché to describe it as the Poodle of America, this is no longer entirely accurate. Poodles are generally docile dogs (although they do have an unfortunate tendency to bark hysterically at inappropriate times). Labradors are energetic and exuberant creatures who are happy to drag their owners into any nearby bush or puddle. The ambition of the British Labradoodle is much grander. Apparently, he wants to drag his owner into a world war.

We must hope that the Biden administration will keep the Starmer government in line over whether Ukraine will be allowed to fire British-made Storm Shadow missiles at Russia. In addition to the requirement for US permission due to the presence of some American-made and licensed components, this would also require US help with intelligence and targeting. Storm Shadows evade air defenses by flying very low and following the contours of the land. This requires “Terrain Reference Navigation,” a technology the US has that the UK does not.

This deep American involvement in not only the delivery but also the targeting of these missiles explains why Moscow sees this as a very serious escalation, which, if left unchecked, would give the West a green light to go even further. There is therefore no doubt that this action could indeed lead to a war between the West and Russia. Moreover, precisely because he has allowed the West to cross so many Russian red lines, Putin is now under intense pressure to respond. He has also boxed himself in by his own public language:

If this decision is taken, it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This will be their direct participation, and this will of course significantly change the essence, the nature of the conflict.

“It would mean,” he emphasizes, “that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia.” The idea that Russia would quickly deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine or elsewhere in response is nonsense, a straw man created by Western hawks (with the help of some extremist Russian commentators whose views are contradicted by the vast majority of the Russian establishment) so that they can easily topple it. Any use of nuclear weapons – tactical or strategic – would be the last, not the first, step in a cycle of mutual escalation. But it would also be almost inevitable if such a cycle, starting with missile attacks, eventually led to full-scale direct war between Russia and NATO.

As an early response to such attacks, there are at least two much more plausible Russian options. The first is indirect: the supply of Russian missiles and targeted intelligence to Hezbollah and the Houthis in their attacks on Western shipping in the Red Sea (Russia would already provide Iran with much more missile and intelligence support in exchange for Iran supplying Russia with drones). Given the current state of the Middle East and the intense pressure from the Netanyahu government on the US to go to war with Iran, is this really the time to encourage Russia to fuel conflict in the region?

A second Russian response could be to specifically attack British targets (and French ones, if French SCALP missiles were also fired at Russia). This could take the form of sabotage of British infrastructure. Russia has already begun sabotage operations in Europe, but so far – contrary to Western intelligence agencies’ claims – only on a small scale and – in my opinion – as a warning of what Russia is doing could be to do, rather than attempting to cause serious harm.

Another possibility would be to shoot down British military aircraft near Russian airspace. This happened almost by accident in 2022. It could happen again – “by accident”. Russians might see such actions as a response to Storm Shadow attacks that would not automatically trigger an escalation by the US; and while this might prove a miscalculation under President Harris, it could well be the case under President Trump. Because one of the things that British proponents of missile attacks seem to have forgotten is the US presidential election in November.

The British public “debate” on this issue is of an almost unbelievable degree of folly – inevitable, perhaps, when the Labour government and the Conservative opposition are united in belligerence. Very prominent and decorated “experts” declare that the threat of Russian escalation is “nonsense” because Putin is “doing all his worst evil against Western societies.” Senior military analysts and retired military figures say that Russia’s armed forces are simultaneously so weak that a few more missiles could enable Ukraine to “win,” and so strong that if they are not stopped in Ukraine, they could launch a direct attack on Britain within a few years.

What explains this collective delirium, among people whose professional duty and raison d’être (for which they are also well paid) is to provide objective analysis in the service of the British state and people, and their vital interests? There are a whole range of reasons why Britain has placed itself so dangerously in the eyes of other Western governments and public opinion; fundamental to them, however, is the inherited and deep-seated desire of the British establishment to play the role of a great power on the world stage, coupled with the fact that this charade always seems to take a military, not a diplomatic, form. In the words of former Conservative Defence Secretary Grant Shapps:

Rather than waiting for formal US approval, Sir Keir should provide President Zelensky with what is desperately needed today. That is how we have taken our global leadership position in supporting Ukraine.

This is a tragedy, because Britain’s role in the Commonwealth (loudly proclaimed by Brexiteers as a source of British international advantage) and its relatively strong diplomatic presence in the “Global South” give it the opportunity to actually play a useful role in the quest for peace in Ukraine. By far the best chance of a peace settlement that avoids Western humiliation and further Russian gain, but which Russia could accept, would be one brought forward by leading countries in the Global South via the United Nations. India, South Africa and Brazil are keen to end the war through a compromise peace and have no sympathy for Russian or Western maximalist objectives. As I was told in Moscow, given the lengths Russia has gone to to appease these countries, it would be very difficult for the Kremlin to reject a peace plan from this source, as long as it met Russia’s basic conditions. If it chooses to behave like a political superpower, rather than pretending to be a military one, Britain could help encourage such an effort.

Instead, Britain has emulated the US in lecturing its former colonies on their international duty. And while they are irritated by such lectures from Washington, they absolutely despise them from their former colonial masters in London. As for the new Labour government’s own ideas for peace, we have heard only Starmer’s true but also virtually meaningless remark that “Russia could stop this war right away” and Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s declaration, “What (Putin) should do now is stop his aggression and leave Ukraine.”

Fortunately, the decision on whether Ukraine should attack Russia rests with Washington, not London. Not only because toeing the American line has long been a doctrine of the British establishment, but also because (as noted) targeting American intelligence is essential if the missiles are to actually hit where they are aimed. Let us hope that President Biden shows restraint. Just because the British government has forgotten its duty to the safety and well-being of the British people is no reason for the American government to forget its duty to the people of the United States.