America can’t afford to lose Britain — again



The Labour government that rules the United Kingdom is hardly a year old, but its time is already coming to an end. Its popular legitimacy has collapsed, and it is visibly losing control of both the British state and its territories.

Every conversation not about proximate policy is about the successor government: which party will take over, who will be leading it, and what’s needed to reverse what looks to be an unalterable course. What is known, however, is that the next government will assume the reins of a fading state after what will likely be the final election under the present, failed dispensation.

We should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.

The Britain birthed by New Labour three decades ago, deracinated and unmoored from its historic roots, is unquestionably at its end. Its elements — most especially the importation of malign Americanisms like propositional nationhood — have led directly to a country that is, according to academics like David Betz of King’s College London, on the precipice of something like a civil war. That’s the worst-case scenario.

The best case is that a once-great nation made itself poor and has become wracked with civil strife, including the jihadi variety. It is a prospect that will make yesteryear’s worst of Ulster seem positively bucolic.

American policymaking is curiously inert in the face of the dissolution of its closest historic ally. This is not because Britain’s decline is anything new: the slow-motion implosion of that nation’s military power has been known to the American defense establishment for most of the past 20 years. Ben Barry’s excellent new book, “The Rise and Fall of the British Army 1975–2025,” offers many examples to this end, including the 2008 fighting in Basra in which American leadership had to rescue a failing British effort.

The knowledge that Britain is facing a regime-level crisis has remained mostly confined to the establishment. Outside of it, the American right has mostly dwelled on an admixture of Anglophilia and special-relationship nostalgia, obscuring the truth of Britain’s precipitous decline.

The American left, of course, entirely endorses what the British regime has done to its citizenry — from the repression of entrepreneurialism and the suppression of free speech to the ethnic replacement of the native population — and regards the outcomes as entirely positive.

It is past time for that inertia to end. The last election will redefine the United Kingdom — and therefore America’s relationship with it. Even before it comes, the rudderless and discredited Labour government has placed Britain into a de facto ungoverned state that may persist for years to come.

The United States has an obligation to protect its own citizenry from the consequences of this reality. It also has what might be called a filial duty to assert conditions for Britain to reclaim itself.

That duty means taking a series of actions, including denying entry to the United States to British officials who engage in the suppression of civil liberties. American security and intelligence should focus on the threats posed by Britain’s burgeoning Islamist population. The U.S. should give preferential immigration treatment to ethnic English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish who are seeking to escape misgovernance or persecution in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the United States should make it clear that the robust Chinese Communist Party penetration and influence operations in U.K. governance will result in a concurrent diminishment of American trust and cooperation.

Also necessary is the American government’s engagement with pro-liberty and pro-British elements within the U.K. This means working with Reform U.K., which presently looks to gain about 400 parliamentary seats in the next election. Its unique combination of a dynamic leader in Nigel Farage, intellectual heavyweights like James Orr and Danny Kruger, and operational energy in Zia Yusuf makes it a compelling and increasingly plausible scenario.

RELATED: Cry ‘God for England’

Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Although the Tories are polling poorly and have had their reputations battered by their substandard record in government over the past decade, they nonetheless merit American engagement.

America’s role here is not to endorse, and still less to select, new leadership for Britain, which would be both an impossibility and an impropriety. However, we should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.

In the fraught summer of 1940, the American poet Alice Duer Miller wrote, “In a world where England is finished and dead, I do not wish to live.” The island nation has not feared its own end at foreign arms for a thousand years. But its crisis today is from within, carrying existential stakes.

The current British regime is nearing its end, and the last election is coming. So too is our decision on how to engage it in the years ahead.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Stopping Mass Violence in Africa Will Take More Than Airstrikes

"I'm hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action," President Donald Trump thundered in a video released Wednesday night. "If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet." Nigerian Christians are under attack from Islamist terrorists, and he told the government in Abuja that if the attacks do not stop soon, "we're going to do things to Nigeria that Nigeria is not going to be happy about and may very well go into that now disgraced country guns a-blazing."

The post Stopping Mass Violence in Africa Will Take More Than Airstrikes appeared first on .

The Attacks On Heritage And Kevin Roberts Are Really About Foreign Policy And J.D. Vance

Genuine concern about antisemitism on the right is being hijacked by neocons to attack J.D. Vance in hopes of re-taking control of the GOP.

Idiot Media Ignore 40 Years Of History To Pretend Trump Attacks On Cartels Are Unprecedented

Right or wrong, Trump isn’t doing anything new with these choices, which are all well within the range of long-established political norms.

How Trump’s Asia Pivot Can Pack a Punch

As Donald Trump boards Air Force One for the first East Asia trip of his second term, he is confronting the main challenge facing the United States and the one that will define his legacy: the ongoing competition with China. There are reasonable grounds for optimism in the White House, but fending off the communist great power will require tremendous focus and determination. If handled well, this trip will set the rest of his term up for success in the Far East.

The post How Trump’s Asia Pivot Can Pack a Punch appeared first on .

Media, Zelenskyy beg Trump to give Ukraine Tomahawks — NATO chief says president was 'completely right' to decline



Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the White House on Friday, hoping that he would talk President Donald Trump into giving Kiev some long-range Tomahawk missiles.

The meeting, while allegedly "cordial," did not go as Zelenskyy had hoped.

Trump, who figures both that America should retain the weapon systems for its own defense and that the provision to Ukraine would not only amount to an intolerable escalation but prove useless in the short term, declined to supply Kiev with Tomahawks.

'It will be too far out into the future.'

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, among the European officials apparently prickled by the decision, implored Trump to hand over the missiles, stating, "Putin believes only in power."

Elements of the liberal media similarly called on Trump to oblige Zelenskyy.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, for instance, characterized the cruise missiles as a "force for peace," suggested that "hoarding cruise missiles for another war that may or may not come invites more conflict," and downplayed the use of the missiles against a nuclear power as escalatory.

The Telegraph suggested that Trump should abandon his role as the "mediator president" and gift Russian President Vladimir Putin "a Christmas punctuated by Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, and Atacms strikes."

Amid such blather, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte emphasized on Wednesday that the American president was "completely right."

Following his meeting on Wednesday with Trump, Rutte told CNN, "Let's never think that one specific weapon system will change the whole war. If it was that easy, then we would have ended it when the Germans sent Leopards II, when the Dutch and the Danes sent the F-16s."

"These systems are important," continued Rutte. "They will absolutely help to bring this war to an end, but in itself, one weapon system will never end it."

RELATED: Melania Trump partners with Putin to lead humanitarian effort in war-torn region

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Zelenskyy, whose term ended in May 2024, seeks to use such missiles — which cost over $2 million a piece and can be fired from a ground-based Typhon launcher that costs around $6.2 million — in concert with long-range drones to strike targets deep inside Russia, including military bases, factories, oil infrastructure, and command centers. Whereas the British-made Storm Shadow missiles in Ukraine's arsenal have a range of 150 miles, Tomahawk missiles have a range of over 1,000 miles.

Rutte referenced the explanation Trump gave during their meeting and said, "He was completely right here: It takes months for anyone other than American soldiers to be trained on [Tomahawk weapon systems]. So it is not that if you decide today that Ukrainians can use them tomorrow."

Trump noted earlier that "there is a tremendous learning curve with the Tomahawk."

"It's a very powerful weapon, very accurate weapon, and maybe that's what makes it so complex," continued the president. "But it will take a year. It takes a year of intense training to learn how to use it, and we know how to use it, and we're not going to be teaching other people. It will be too far out into the future."

Trump, keen on brokering an end to war well in advance of that time Tomahawk missiles might have capable pilots on the ground, has instead turned to a more immediate method of applying pressure on Russia to end the war, namely sanctions on Russia, its enablers, and — as of Wednesday — two of Russia's largest state-owned oil companies.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Man The Left Calls A ‘Nazi’ Just Signed A Peace Deal Protecting Millions Of Jews

President Donald Trump was heralded Monday as a hero by a grateful Israel that rejoiced in the return of the last living hostages.

Trump Is The Best Statesman Of Our Time Because He’s A Realist

If we are to properly set the conditions for a civilizational rebirth, we must accept that realistic rhetoric is the statecraft needed for renewal.