Why is the Chief of our Defence Staff sounding the war drums on the BBC, while simultaneously issuing inaccurate statements about Russia? His primary responsibility is to safeguard our nation’s seas, coasts, and skies, not to wade into political controversies.
Isn’t it about time we retired the notion of war as outdated and unfashionable? Much like the garish styles of the 1970s, war has become an ugly relic of the past that leaves many questioning, “What were we thinking back then?”
Consider Donald Trump’s ill-fated attack on Iran, executed with the collaboration of Israel, which has spiraled into a fiasco threatening global recession while accomplishing virtually nothing. Many are growing increasingly weary of Benjamin Netanyahu’s persistent recourse to violence in Gaza and Lebanon, yet they hesitate to criticize for fear of harming Israel’s standing.
Vladimir Putin’s reckless decision to engage in a lawless invasion has plunged Russia into further chaos, mistakenly believing he could outmaneuver America’s hawkish factions. In reality, his actions played right into their hands, revealing Russia’s glaring vulnerabilities, particularly its outdated conventional military forces. The tragic outcome is visible even from space, marked by expanding cemeteries.
None of this should come as a shock. Throughout my life, impulsive leaders have opted for war over diplomacy, leaving a trail of bloodshed and disgrace. Our own history, with ill-judged attacks on Suez, Iraq, and Libya, has led to national decline, increasing poverty, a culture of deceit, and an influx of immigration from destabilized regions.
Yet, a fervent pro-war faction persists within this country, recently manifesting bizarrely. In recent years, we’ve witnessed intelligence chiefs stepping out of the shadows to deliver alarming, warlike pronouncements. Military leaders, once paragons of discretion, have started publicly advocating for conflict—actions that, within our governmental structure, are inappropriate. Their mandate is to defend, not to pontificate.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, currently Chief of the Defence Staff, began to speak about the Kremlin threat, saying that ‘closer to home we have seen in 2026 more long-range aviation from Russia’… alas for him, this is twaddle, writes Peter Hitchens
Vladimir Putin has brought increasing ruin on his country by foolishly thinking he could outsmart America’s Russia hawks
The latest is Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, currently Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). He was interviewed on Friday by the normally level-headed Justin Webb on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. As it was the eve of the anniversary of D-Day, Sir Rich (as he prefers to be known) rightly recalled the courage of those who fought in Normandy in 1944, but also ‘the strength of the alliance that allowed us to fight for freedom and push Nazi Germany back’.
So far, so ordinary. But then the exchange turned weird. Mr Webb asked, in the woeful tones of a funeral director: ‘How close are we now to having to fight again against Russia?’
Note that ‘again’. Why did he say it? Britain has not been at war with Russia since the end of the Crimean War in 1856. In 1914, Russia was our ally against Germany. In 1944, Russia – then in the USSR – was utterly vital to the alliance that, as the CDS rightly said, ‘allowed us to fight for freedom and push Nazi Germany back’.
Russians would argue that D-Day, as brave and noble as it was, could not have happened if Russians had not fought Hitler for the previous three years over many bitter, bloody miles.
The current official frenzy for a new conflict with Russia causes people to forget such inconvenient things. It shouldn’t.
But then came the really odd bit. Sir Rich turns out to be against illegal invasions (tell Sir Anthony Blair!), critical of those who carry out assassinations (tell Mr Netanyahu!) and critical of those who are willing to ‘use military force against another nation’ (tell President Trump!). He also believes this is ‘the most dangerous period that I have known’ in 35 years of service. Is it really?
Then he began to speak about the Kremlin threat. He said that ‘closer to home we have seen in 2026 more long-range aviation from Russia. These are strategic aircraft that will go well into our own airspace, as many in 2026 as we saw in 2025’.
Alas for the CDS, this is twaddle. There haven’t been any such incursions since 2005. Russian planes may fly close to our airspace (we also fly close to theirs) but they don’t usually fly into it. You might bear this in mind the next time you see a headline claiming that some ancient Russian Bear Tu-95 (it first flew in 1952, so is almost as old as I am) has violated Britain’s sovereign air. It won’t have done.
When I pointed out the CDS’s rather serious factual mistake to the Defence Ministry, they tried to pretend that Sir Rich had been speaking of the ‘High North’, a vague ill-defined area in the Arctic which includes Russia and has no specific airspace anyway.
But he didn’t utter the phrase. What he had done was to use the words ‘closer to home’ and ‘our own airspace’, which plainly mean the UK.
But the real question is: Why do senior military figures believe and spout this stuff? Yes, they want more money. But by turning rusty, bungling Russia into a giant bogeyman with scare stories and alarm, they – and the BBC – may alas get their wish, a real war. You won’t enjoy it, if they do.
Beware this rush to war. All that the warmongers learned from being caught out lying in Iraq was how to make their propaganda slicker.
Snakes on a train…
Travellers by public transport, such as I am, are being confronted with this peculiar poster, which appears to suggest that it is a bad idea, on a train, to make yellow female snakes feel uncomfortable. Quite right. I wouldn’t dream of doing so, though they are rare on my route to work. After some thought, I grasped what it was really trying to say. But shouldn’t such campaigns be a bit less clever, and a bit more direct?
