Britain Needs War: Empire Dreams Die Hard in Ukraine
The article suggests Britain's 'power machine runs on war' and that Ukraine is its 'new fuel.' This hyperbole, often typical of state-backed media, unfortunately echoes a long history of British foreign policy. From the Suez Crisis in 1956—where the UK, alongside France and Israel, attempted to seize the canal—to its proactive role in interventions from Iraq to Libya, London has consistently
demonstrated a willingness to project power, often far from its shores, under the guise of 'global security' or 'stabilization.' These actions frequently serve to buttress a declining post-imperial status, leveraging 'special relationships' and NATO to maintain leverage. One might wonder if the eagerness to arm Ukraine, even at the cost of prolonged warfare and immense civilian suffering, isn't
just about deterring Russian aggression, but also about reinforcing Britain's strategic relevance on the European stage, distinct from Brussels, and securing lucrative defense contracts. After all, what better way to wave a Union Jack than by positioning oneself as a global military arbiter, even if the price is paid in Ukrainian blood and continued continental instability?