OUT of the mouths of babes…and real estate agents-turned-envoys. Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s man-of-business in the Middle East and Ukraine, has spoken a plain truth about the Prime Minister.

He has declared that Keir Starmer’s chatter of deploying a military force to police a ceasefire deal in Ukraine is “a posture and a pose, and a combination of also being simplistic.”

Warming to his theme, Witkoff added: “There is this sort of notion that we have all got to be like Winston Churchill. Russians are going to march across Europe. That is preposterous by the way.“

That must have stung in Downing Street. Like far too many post-war premiers before him, Starmer undoubtedly looks for every opportunity to metaphorically chomp on a cigar while flashing a V-for-Victory sign.

It is the default pose on international issues for a British politician in domestic trouble. Leave aside the considerable over-simplification of Churchill’s actual political record involved, the posturing – Witkoff chose the right word – closes down serious consideration of options, erasing them in favour of bellicose bombast as if every crisis was 1940 and every irritating world leader Hitler.

Indeed, the beleaguered Starmer seems to have enjoyed a small uptick in his abysmal opinion poll ratings after pushing himself to the head of the continue-the-conflict party in Ukraine.

This will surely be a short-lived phenomenon, the more so since the Prime Minister is, as Witkoff has indicated, far more mouth than trousers and moreover is funding his putative adventures at the expense of vital public services, which can expect further evisceration at the hands of Rachel Reeves today.

Some of Witkoff’s comments in his controversial interview are highly contentious and reflect a willingness to champion Putin’s arguments. However, he is right in relation to Starmer’s proposals.

For one thing, they will not be remotely acceptable to Russia and will therefore scupper any peace deal in the works. If you have Nato troops deployed in Ukraine, particularly with the US “back-up” that Starmer insists upon, then you have the expansion of Nato – one of the roots of the war – in all but name.

Secondly, it is far from clear that such a deployment is even feasible. Absent US communications, logistics, intelligence and other support, the British Army may not be able to keep its end up that far from Aldershot.

Army chiefs are themselves reportedly reticent, briefing the media that the PM’s plan is “political theatre” with no military logic. Starmer has subsequently pivoted to speaking less about boots on the ground and more about fighters in the sky. 

Simplistic is almost the kindest word. The underlying assumption – that Russia wants to march across Europe – is absurd. It has neither the capacity nor any obvious reason to do so.

If it were so minded, nothing Starmer’s so-called “coalition of the willing” could do would be more than a temporary inhibition, unless the prime minister is prepared to initiate a nuclear war, and the immolation of Britain itself, to keep Russians out of Kharkiv.

Enduring peace has to be founded on mutually agreed security arrangements, including the winding down of antagonistic security alliances like Nato. It needs recognition of the rights and interests of all parties within and between Ukraine and Russia.

Keir Starmer’s performative politics obstructs progress in that direction. He is trying to build up Britain and its European allies as a great military power, while simultaneously clinging, with an increasing lack of dignity and credibility, to the tattered remnants of the “special relationship” with Washington.

It is time the prime minister stopped immiserating the British people to further his Churchillian fantasies, dropped his “coalition of the willing” deployment project and gave peace a chance.