Yesterday, in an interview with Sky’s Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer refused to answer questions about the decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory using a UK-made long-range missile. ‘You will understand I’m not going to comment on operational intel,’ he told Rigby. Pressed to reassure the public that they had not been put at risk of a nuclear retaliation, the prime minister explained, ‘The reason I’m not going to comment is that Putin is the winner if I do so.’

For years, the United States and Britain resisted Ukrainian lobbying for the authorisation of such attacks. Vladimir Putin and other Russian government figures have warned that allowing NATO weapons to be used to attack Russia within its own borders (as opposed to the territory it illegally occupies) would constitute direct NATO involvement in the war and have threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

Regardless of one’s support for Ukraine’s right to attack Russia, the strike represents the most dangerous escalation of the war so far, with Russia’s ambassador to Britain stating we are now ‘directly involved in this war.’ It is remarkable, then, given the risks, that the prime minister not only failed to make a statement to parliament explaining his decision but is outright refusing to answer questions about it.

This is not the first time Keir Starmer has deemed major foreign policy decisions unfit for democratic consideration. As reported by Al Jazeera and Declassified, Britain operates more reconnaissance flights on behalf of Israel — over both Gaza and Lebanon — than any other nation, and the RAF frequently flies cargo planes from its Cypress airbase to the country. The government similarly refuses to answer parliamentary questions regarding these flights for ‘operational security reasons.’

Britain’s direct involvement in Israel’s operations against Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran are all, to varying degrees, conducted behind a veil of secrecy and largely in defiance of both public opinion and parliamentary democracy. Government reticence over the strike against Russia represents an increasing trend in which MPs are barely informed, let alone consulted, about major foreign policy decisions at a time of global volatility. And with a few honourable exceptions, the media has displayed an astonishing disinterest in this government secrecy. 

The prime minister’s dismissal of democratic process was accompanied by its alarming nonchalance over the prospect of nuclear war. Pushed in the Sky interview to address Russia’s threats, the prime minister only reminded viewers that ‘Russia is the aggressor,’ pointing the finger of blame for any impending nuclear attack rather than engaging with his responsibility to avoid that outcome.

The case put forward by proponents of further escalation is that NATO has frequently violated Russia’s ‘red lines’ in support of Ukraine’s war effort without Russia’s threatened responses ever materialising. Therefore, the argument goes, all threats can be dismissed as sabre-rattling, even as Western-backed attacks inch towards what Russia perceives as existential threats. And despite Putin being crazy, it is explained, he would never use a nuclear weapon because that would be irrational.

These dismissals ignore the fact that a direct nuclear attack is not the only option available to Putin’s government. The likely exchange between Russia and North Korea, where technological support was provided for Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programme in return for armaments, is just one example of how conflict can spiral in unexpected ways.

That several nations, including the US, temporarily closed their Kyiv embassies after receiving warning of a ‘potential significant air attack’ demonstrates a recognition of a potential Russian escalation, even if it isn’t publicly acknowledged. One need only look at Israel’s levelling of Gaza, or indeed Russia’s destruction of Grozny in the Second Chechen War, to see the horrors of widespread indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Another indicator of the recklessness of yesterday’s attack is that the US and Britain refused for years to allow NATO weapons to be used to attack Russian territory despite the Ukrainian government’s repeated public protestations. Only now, when the Biden administration is on its way out and no longer has to deal with the consequences, was the green light given. It is difficult to see the timing as unrelated to the Trump administration’s stated desire to negotiate a peace agreement and dial down US military support. Far from an ‘operational’ matter, it may well be a political move to escalate the war to prevent the next administration from de-escalating once it takes office.

Even those who strongly support the move to allow Ukraine to use American and British weapons to strike into Russian territory should be alarmed that these considerations and the consequences of yesterday’s attack — for Britain, the West, Ukraine, and the wider world — are not subject to even the most basic democratic scrutiny. For our political elites, foreign policy is to be decided by them. It’s we, however, who must live with the consequences.