If the opinion polls are to be believed, Nigel Farage’s comments on Ukraine last week have done little to shift public opinion. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, it seems that Reform voters concerned about mass migration and “woke” history curriculums aren’t too worried about the latest developments from the front in Donetsk. 

Yet for all of the scrutiny that Farage’s comment has received, a far more dangerous opinion on the same subject has escaped media attention altogether. Speaking to Sky News, former Defence Select Committee Chairman Tobias Ellwood called for Britain to move to a “war footing” and to face Russia “directly”. Like or loathe Farage, he wasn’t openly calling for a land war against a nuclear power — and yet for much of the establishment, it’s Ellwood that’s regarded as the credible voice on foreign policy. 

All too often, he’s trotted out by the usual suspects to perform a John Bolton tribute act, insisting that it is Britain’s solemn duty to declare war on Russia, or China, or Iran. For Ellwood and his ilk, our role on the international stage is that of a policeman, tasked with stamping out illiberalism wherever it rears its head. In a sense, it’s a relief that our armed forces are so poorly funded, or else they might actually be called to answer for the sabre-rattling of Ellwood et al. 

Alas, this is not an isolated incident; the British media has a habit of amplifying foreign policy naivete. Amongst the world’s major economies, Britain is unique in having a political class which totally fails to understand our international interests. In Westminster, sober foreign policy analysis is hard to come by; politicians of all parties are guilty of performative virtue-signalling. On the left, politicians compromise our interests in the name of human rights and international law. The right, meanwhile, is susceptible to lofty ideas about our role in the defence of global democracy, competing to see who can offer the most uncritical support for Ukraine, or Israel, or whichever other country is in the spotlight. 

International conflicts are understood through a reductive “democracies versus autocracies, goodies versus baddies” lens which obscures underlying motivations. Governments that we dislike are described as either mad or evil, with no intellectual regard given to the idea that they might be responding to legitimate incentives and pressures. Worst of all, foreign affairs too often become an unhealthy proxy for domestic disputes. 

Unfortunately for those in the Westminster bubble, this stuff actually matters; leave your sixth form debating skills at the door. Neither side seems to recognise that foreign policy exists to enrich our people, secure our interests, and, ultimately, defend ourselves from external aggression. When we think about foreign policy, we should be thinking about supply chains, resource management, and the naked exercise of military and economic power.

Yet all too often, our national debates around foreign policy are totally insulated from this harsh reality, dominated instead by “received wisdom” which bears little relationship to reality. Ideas like “credibility”, “international standing”, and “soft power” abound; how do we want the world to view Britain? Should we be caring, or fair, or strong? And of course, we mustn’t forget about those international obligations. The worst manifestation of this is surely David Lammy’s “progressive realism”, which gestures vaguely in the direction of our interests while upholding all of the same old dogmas. 

The result is a foreign policy approach which is thoroughly divorced from material reality. Rather than recognising that international aid is a tool for buying influence, our foreign policy establishment has been captured by luvvy-duvvy humanitarians who insist upon frittering away taxpayer cash on interpretative dance projects in West Africa. While the global free trade consensus crumbles, we’ve invested far too little into the Royal Navy, which will be essential for securing our economic interests in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean. And why are we spending so much time talking about Israel, when our regional interests rely far more on maintaining relationships with Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf monarchies? 

Facing up to questions like these will only become more important in the uncertain global order that will characterise the next few decades. The post-1945 status quo has already disintegrated, and yet our diplomats continue to swan around the world as if we are at the height of the Pax Americana. Forget international law; we are now subject to the law of the jungle.

The answer is not to double-down on platitude-filled international commitments, and nor is it to commit ourselves to some reheated Cold War against the autocracies. Instead, we must work to craft a genuinely self-interested foreign policy, which recognises that we can no longer afford the luxury of principles; we are simply too poor for that.

Instead of chasing international kudos, we should be willing to use whatever means necessary to secure our interests — that means ensuring the flow of goods into the country, protecting our energy supply chains, and balancing a variety of partnerships to maximise investment into our services-heavy economy. If deals aren’t working for us, they should be terminated . If our economic interests are threatened, we must be willing to use force to ensure that those interests are protected. When it’s convenient to work alongside a foreign state, regardless of its internal affairs, we should do so — and when it stops being convenient, we should seek partnerships elsewhere. The emergence of a multipolar world, characterised by a number of regional middle powers, will make this approach a necessity.

We are entering a new chapter in geopolitics, and without a reappraisal, we will be hung out to dry

Like it or not, we must also develop the capacity to act unilaterally, without reliance on our cousins across the pond. Continuing to depend on Washington’s goodwill represents an enormous “key man” risk — the Americans are under no illusions about the “Special Relationship”, and understand fully that this is a partnership based on mutual interest. If this ceases to be the case, we shouldn’t expect latent Anglophilia to translate into substantive support on the international stage — as Joe Biden’s continued support for the nationalist camp in Northern Ireland demonstrates.

In the meantime, let’s stop giving so much oxygen to shallow foreign policy analysis from politicians who view this craft as a tool for the furtherance of their domestic aims. We are entering a new chapter in geopolitics, and without a reappraisal, we will be hung out to dry by states which are far more shrewd and far more ruthless than us. No position should be without scrutiny, and no cow should ever be too sacred to be slain in the pursuit of our interests. The age of Men is over; the time of the Orc has come.