In Miguel de Cervantes’ celebrated work Don Quixote, the eponymous protagonist believes himself to be a valiant vigilante, beholden to uphold the hallowed traditions of knight errantry.
Mounted atop what he perceives to be a trusty steed, sword and shield in hand, the honourable hero of the story seeks out wrongdoing and fights injustices, feeling a great sense of pride as he vanquishes villains and saves damsels in distress.
In reality, Quixote is a madman. His sturdy horse is actually an enfeebled nag; his lance, little more than a wooden stick; the evil giants he attempts to slay, just windmills.
Far from being a revered chevalier, the Don of La Mancha is in fact considered to be a dangerous fool by all those who unwittingly and unfortunately cross his path.
Cervantes’ masterpiece, in this respect, was a surreal satire; a wry allegory for the confusions and delusions that gripped the minds of the nobility during the decline of the Spanish Empire.
The old feudal establishment could not recognise their diminished status. Instead, they clung to a bygone age when they oversaw vast kingdoms. But this only accelerated their demise.
Deluded fantasy
Fast forward to today, and Britain has its own quixotic knight – similarly deranged, poorly armed, and living in the past. The only difference is that this chivalrous halfwit holds the highest office in the land.
‘Sir’ Keir Starmer is currently playing out an unhinged, farcical fantasy: one in which he is the champion of the western world; the defender of freedom, liberty, and other such lofty values.
Like Cervantes’ Ingenious Gentleman, the Prime Minister is riding around the realm, embarking on quests and adventures, all puffed up with a warped sense of imperial nostalgia. And he is having just about as much success along the way as his ill-fated fictional equivalent.
The ‘Don’ in this drama, by contrast, is not a courageous guardian of virtuous ideals, but a billionaire property mogul turned US President, intent on smashing the once-sacrosanct pillars of the so-called ‘rules-based order’ – the institutions of western imperialism.
In regards to Ukraine, Donald Trump has made his intentions clear: to wash America’s hands of any responsibility for protecting Europe’s eastern front.
His predecessor, Joe Biden, pushed the Kyiv regime into a war, hoping to knock Russia down to size. But the latest occupant of the White House sees that it is not in the interests of US imperialism to be policing the rest of the world anymore, especially not Europe.
Instead, the incoming administration wants to secure America’s strategic positions closer to home, and focus its energies on the US’ main rival: China.
This has left the European ruling classes shell shocked. The German and French allowed themselves to be led by the nose by Uncle Sam when it came to providing arms and aid to Ukraine.
In Britain, meanwhile, for their own cynical, narrow reasons, Boris Johnson and the Tories were even more gung-ho than Biden when it came to provoking a proxy imperialist war between the West and Russia.
But now the world has been turned upside down by Trump. NATO has effectively been scrapped. And politicians in Berlin, Paris, and London are asking whether the USA is a reliable ally or an unpredictable adversary.
Yet what choice do these second-rate powers have, ultimately, but to accept this paradigm shift; this new imperialist equilibrium?
Suez moment
In truth, the British premier is not motivated by any genuine concern for the Ukrainian people, or by the supposed ‘menace’ of Putin’s Russia, standing on Europe’s doorstep.
Lest we forget, this is the same man who has happily sponsored a genocide in Gaza, and who backed Israel’s besiegement and forced starvation of the Strip and its imprisoned population.
Starmer’s ‘unconditional’ support for Zelensky has nothing to do with ‘defending democracy’, and everything to do with imperial prestige.
An apt historical analogy, in this respect, is the Suez Crisis of 1956, when British and French imperialism launched a botched invasion of Egypt, leading to their mutual humiliation at the hands of Nasser’s regime and the rising superpower of the USA.
This similarly marked a turning point and realignment in world relations; a reckoning for the British and French ruling classes, as they retreated from one colonial dominion after another in the postwar period.
From this time onwards, it has been evident what the nature of the UK-US ‘special relationship’ is: that between a servile butler and his master.
Today, Britain and France’s latest leaders are desperate to avoid their own Suez moment, in the form of an ignominious abandonment of Ukraine.
Try as they might, however, recent events have only underlined how irrelevant and weak these former world powers have become, and how impotent their representatives are to prevent this embarrassing fate.
They know that they have no chance of propping up Zelensky without US military, logistical, and financial support. And Trump has made it abundantly clear that an American security ‘backstop’ will not be forthcoming – no matter how many meetings with Britain’s royals Starmer dangles in front of him.
Dwarves amongst pygmies
In the company of their irrelevant European counterparts, Starmer and Macron stand tall, like dwarves amongst pygmies.
This fuels their delusions of grandeur, with the UK PM and French President putting on the pretence of stature, sway, and significance on the world stage by hosting showy summits and attempting to forge a “coalition of the willing” to buttress Ukraine.
But deep down, these charlatans know that they are no Atlas. On every level – economically, militarily, and politically – they are incapable of upholding a crumbling status quo. And sooner or later, this cold reality will begin to bite, with bitter consequences.
Just as with the US-UK withdrawal from Afghanistan a few years ago, British imperialism will be forced to accept the West’s de facto defeat in Ukraine. And as was seen in Parliament back then, this will no doubt lead to all manner of hand-wringing and soul searching on the part of the establishment.
In the final analysis, it will be US imperialism and the other big pirates – Russia and China – that will decide the fate of smaller nations like Ukraine, as they carve up the loot between them. And Britain, France, and Germany will have to accept whatever fait accompli is presented before them.
This dilemma is already dawning on the more farsighted strategists of capital.
“Under Sir Keir,” writes liberal journal the Economist, “the British government is pursuing the only plausible strategy available: clinging onto an uncertain transatlantic relationship and forging a closer one with Europe.”
After all, the magazine continues, “when asked to choose between Europe and America, the answer can only be a firm ‘both’.”
“This strategy, however, now relies on the grace of Mr Trump,” the authors correctly note. “If he were to do something once unthinkable, such as leave NATO altogether, then Sir Keir could face the unenviable choice he has sought to avoid: Europe or America?”
This highlights the Prime Minister’s predicament. Starmer can make as many grandstanding speeches as he likes about backing Ukraine. But ultimately he will not be willing to risk breaking with America. And if that means throwing Zelensky under the bus down the line, so be it.
This will mark yet another devastating blow for British imperialism, further undermining the authority of all those warmongering politicians who have spent years insisting that the UK must spend billions on bombs and bloodshed, whilst throwing pennies at the poor.
Warmongers, liars, and crooks
For now, Starmer is basking in the praise of the British establishment: delighted to receive plaudits – from the Tories and capitalist media alike – for his performance as self-appointed envoy between Washington and Europe; for simultaneously brown-nosing Trump and ‘showing leadership’ in regards to Ukraine.
In fact, there has been (ever so slightly) more dissent coming from behind Starmer – with Labour’s international development minister, Anneliese Dodds, resigning in protest against the PM’s cuts to foreign aid – than from His Majesty’s Official Opposition in front of him.
James Cleverly, for example, the former Tory home secretary, asserted that the Labour leader had “not really put a foot wrong” in his recent diplomatic dance. Ex-security minister Tom Tugendhat, meanwhile, proclaimed that Starmer had “spoken for Britain” in declaring his sincere support for Zelensky.
To ordinary onlookers of this sickening spectacle, it feels like the Conservative and Labour leaders are competing to see who can bang the war drums the loudest – a case of one lot of gangsters and reprobates applauding another.
With comparisons to Churchill, meanwhile, the Economist suggested that the British PM’s recent theatrics were his “finest hour”.
Starmer, the latest war criminal in Number 10, has a cynical interest in whipping up such bellicose hysteria, and promulgating this parliamentary pomp and cant.
For starters, this pantomime provides the ‘Labour’ leader with the perfect opportunity to prove, to the ruling class, his qualities as a respectable and responsible statesman – one who can be trusted to govern in the interests of British imperialism.
At the same time, this circus serves as a convenient distraction from the manifold crises bearing down on Starmer’s government, with ‘patriotic’ calls for ‘national unity’ designed to throw dust in the public’s eyes.
This shows how Starmer, the Tories, and Farage are equally reactionary. Whether it be through flag-waving or migrant-bashing, these capitalist politicians are all consciously attempting to cut across the class questions in society.
Workers and youth must unite and fight to oppose all these Westminster warmongers, liars, and crooks.
“I wouldn’t fight for the rich”
The capitalist press is currently bigging up Starmer’s supposed ‘war bounce’ in the polls – although his approval ratings remain deeply negative, at minus 28.
Even if such a recovery is real, it will prove to be extremely ephemeral.
The noxious fumes of patriotism will quickly dissipate, giving way to a burning class anger against an out-of-touch establishment set on dismantling the welfare state and building a ‘warfare state’ in its place.
Despite the ruling class’ jingoistic efforts, the class issues will soon come to the fore. After all, for ordinary families, warmongering and militarism won’t pay the bills. In fact, Starmer’s push for rearmament is going to mean an even greater squeeze on workers and the poor.
There is already a widespread radicalisation and rejection of national chauvinism amongst the youth.
One recent survey reported that only 41 percent of young people are proud to be British – half the level of two decades ago. According to this same poll, an equal proportion of Gen Zs (41 percent) said that there were no circumstances in which they would take up arms for their country.
Elsewhere, when interrogated on why they would be unwilling to serve in the UK armed forces, even in the event of a Third World War, the top answer given by young Britons (at 21 percent) was: “I am not prepared to fight for the rich and powerful.”
And no wonder – far from going into battle to defend the capitalists and their interests, almost half of young people in Britain want a revolution to sweep out the lot of them.
Storm their castles
This barometer of the youth highlights the real explosive mood in society. However, this does not find an expression in mainstream politics.
With the exception of the revolutionary communists of the RCP, nobody is putting forward a genuine alternative to all the reactionary garbage pumped out by the ruling class and its mouthpieces.
We cannot trust the traditional parties to put up a real struggle against Starmer and his imperialist agenda.
The only response from the SNP and Labour backbenchers, for example, has been to call for Downing Street to rescind its invitation of an official state visit to Trump, which Starmer recently offered the US President as part of his nauseating Oval Office performance.
Notably, there has not been one critical word from these ladies and gentlemen on the government’s decision to prioritise guns before butter.
The trade union and ‘left’ leaders, meanwhile, are dragging their feet, and sowing illusions in utopian reformism and liberal pacifism.
A national demonstration against Starmer’s ‘austerity 2.0’ has been called by the People’s Assembly, for example, with the backing of left-led unions such as the NEU, PCS, and RMT. But it is not due to take place until 7 June.
‼️Hold the date!
On Saturday 7th June, we are planning a big demo against Labour’s Austerity 2.0 in Central London.
👉 Austerity is a Political Choice
👉 Welfare Not Warfare
👉 Stop the Far Right
👉 Stop the Cuts pic.twitter.com/S2cMeRYZlH— People’s Assembly (@pplsassembly) February 28, 2025
Most importantly, the organisers’ main slogans of “austerity is a political choice” and “fight the far right” fail to target the main enemy: capitalism and its current representatives.
In Britain, this means Starmer and his cronies. We must concentrate all our fire on them, and organise workers and youth to overthrow the capitalist system that is responsible for war, crisis, and austerity.
Like the motley central cast of Cervantes’ novel, ‘Don’ Starmer and his imperialist sidekicks are pernicious lunatics. It’s high time we had a pitchfork rebellion to storm their castles, topple this rotten establishment, and bring an end to the chaos, destruction, and misery that they inflict upon the rest of us.
