As British imperialism slides further into crisis, its political leaders try to cover up this decline by making ever more grandiose pronouncements as to their ability to still “project power” into the world.
The declarations made by British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer regarding his willingness to send British forces to Ukraine should be seen in this light. Since it became clear that the Ukraine war was sliding towards an ignominious defeat for the Nato-backed forces of the Kiev regime, the USA under the administration of President Donald Trump has been trying to play a double game.
On the one hand, it has been engaging the Russians in negotiations and talking about ‘restoring relations’ On the other, it has been pushing the Europeans to (effectively) carry on with the ever-escalating aggressive actions against Russia. And amidst all of this, Sir Keir Starmer has called for a huge programme of expansion of the British military.
He is supported in this by the usual collection of social-chauvinist trade union leaders (such as Unite general secretary Sharon Graham), who welcome the creation of “good jobs” in the arms manufacturing industries. Starmer has also stated that he is determined to increase military spending.
There is a large gap, however, between the grandiose pronouncements of the leaders of British imperialism and the actual reality of what decaying, late-stage British imperialism can actually do.
Post cold war military doctrines
The British imperialists realised that large armies were too expensive to maintain as the colonial period of British imperialism came to a close. Being forced out of India, Malaya, Kenya and other colonies meant that military tactics needed to change. The British ruling class did away with conscription in 1960 and slowly cut back their forces on land in particular over the next 30 years.
Their policy was driven by the need to move from the direct colonialism of the old school to the neocolonialism of the modern era. Neocolonialism demands a shift from direct military occupation of a nation to rule via more hidden means. Many African nations gained their independence from British and French colonialism during this time, but were tied into economic relationships with their former coloniser, which was enabled to retain effective control over the economies of the nominally independent states.
This meant that the British were able to downgrade their military forces to specialise more on providing training and on directing operations rather than doing the bulk of the fighting using British troops. This was advantageous for the British ruling class as the fewer troops from the imperialist homeland killed in action, the less likely was the rise of a more powerful antiwar movement within Britain itself.
The only time the British were willing to risk a ground war was when there was little chance of widespread casualties – as was the case with Iraq in 1991 and 2003. In the first Gulf war, Iraq was facing such overwhelming odds that the fighting was over relatively quickly. And the 2003 invasion of Iraq took place after over a decade of siege sanctions had severely weakened the Iraqi state and military – to the point where the US and British imperialists were fairly confident they could get away with minimal casualties.
The domestic backlash to the Iraq war, the inability of the imperialists to subdue the Iraqi resistance forces, and the military cutbacks necessitated by the economic collapse of 2008, caused British war planners to change things again for the purpose of the wars in Libya and Syria.
In the case of the US, British and French war of aggression against Libya, the imperialists used their air forces, but for ground troops they relied upon armed gangs organised via Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state tyrannies. The role of the British in the Libyan and Syrian wars was to run psychological operations, deploy ‘special forces’ and organise the siege of Syria via a sanctions regime. The actual fighting was done by what are, essentially, outsourced mercenary armies that work for imperialism.
Ukraine was another case of the USA and Britain successfully turning an entire country into an outsourced military, with the British in the role of planners of the military campaign against Russia (as even the Times now admits) and the Ukrainians dying in gigantic numbers to enact the (often extremely foolish) plans of British military officers.
In 65 years, the British imperialists have gone from having large-scale land, sea and air forces to having much smaller forces that are essentially focused on managing other (largely non-British) forces.
The failure of the Ukraine war, however, has caused a panic within the corridors of the British Ministry of Defence. The British operation in Ukraine was supposed to revive British imperialism by causing either the total collapse of Russia or the restoration of comprador rule in Moscow. This aim having failed, the Starmer government is having to reconsider its options.
Added to the complications facing the British ruling class is the fact that there is a very public reconsideration of priorities going on (chaotically) inside the Trump administration. Trump has demanded that all Nato countries increase defence spending to 5 percent of GDP and that more weapons orders are placed with US companies by these same countries. In response, Starmer has announced an increase in spending to 2.5 percent of GDP, up to from 2.3 percent, with an “ambition” to reach 3 percent of GDP by 2029.
This is far away from Trump’s demands and highly unlikely to produce anything that will give either the Russians or the Chinese sleepless nights.
British military chiefs know very well that they are utterly incapable of challenging the Chinese or the Russians, either now or in five years. This is why the Times ran an article on 24 April announcing that Starmer’s much trumpeted threats to deploy British troops to Ukraine as “peacekeepers” has been an absolute non-starter, since the risks of them being attacked by the Russians were much too high. (UK could scrap plans to send thousands of troops to Ukraine by Larisa Brown)
Imperialism undermined by its own degeneracy
Starmer’s plans for an increase in production of war materiel are undermined by the parlous state of the British industrial base. Britain does not produce enough steel, for instance, to meet the demands of war production. The Labour government stepped in at the last minute only to prevent the Scunthorpe steel plant from closing because it supplies vital parts to Network Rail that would be difficult to source from elsewhere.
But renationalising one steel plant is hardly going to be enough if Starmer is to deliver on his rhetoric regarding plans to reinvigorate war production. Britain, being the oldest imperialist country, is by far the most degenerated. Its industrial base has been left to wither away to the point where the militarily necessary mass production of tanks, ships and aircraft is simply not possible.
The Ukraine war has left Britain’s reserve stocks of weaponry and vehicles almost exhausted, a casualty of the massive destruction that the Russian army has inflicted upon the Ukrainian/Nato forces.
This is where we see the contradictions of decaying imperialism on full display. The British ruling class has wiped out large-scale industrial facilities in Britain in pursuit of the greater profits it could bring in by exporting capital abroad. The only way the imperialists might be able to secure the necessary boost in production at this point would be to have the state take direct control over industry to build up industrial capacity in a way that private owners simply will not do.
The reality behind Starmer’s big statements is that the British ruling class would never accept the tax rises that would be needed to build back a home-grown industrial base. These would be far too large simply to be imposed on the working class and would therefore have to be financed largely by big business.
The dangers ahead
Faced with defeat and disaster in Ukraine, the British ruling class will not only increase its aggression against other nations, but the class war within Britain itself will intensify. As British imperialism weakens, it will become harder and harder for the bourgeoisie to maintain its necessary rate of profit, so the ruling class will be compelled to try to make good by squeezing the working class harder and harder – forcing the working class to resist.
We can expect the bourgeoisie to launch ever greater attacks upon the working class in the form of wage cuts, privatisations and price hikes. To weaken working-class resistance, it is necessary to keep them divided, so we can also expect to see an increase in attempts at stoking bourgeois nationalism, rabid anti-immigration and islamophobic sentiment being whipped up, and attempts to indoctrinate the younger generation of workers with militarism.
This must be resisted, and communists must explain clearly to workers who might be taken in by such campaigns that for all the tub-thumping and flag-waving of the British imperialists, their appeals to nationhood and ‘pride’ are, in reality, merely an attempt to disguise the rabid pursuit of profit by a ruling class whose time ran out over a century ago.
The British working class must come to understand that its greatest enemies sit in the City of London, and that we share these enemies with all those resisting imperialism.
Only by learning this lesson can British workers hope to free ourselves from the shackles placed on us by imperialism.
