Russia – Ukraine
Although we kind of knew that the Russia-Ukraine conflict would not be over in 24 hours, as promised by President Trump once he got into office, things were supposed to move quickly. Even though they may be delayed by the odd week or two, a deal—which will only go through if Ukraine accepts it—still seems to be the most likely scenario. There is also the argument that, in the wake of the tariff chaos that Trump has delivered, a win from any source is sorely needed.
While it would have been great if there were some kind of exchange of land captured for Ukraine joining NATO, or even some kind of 99-year lease on the territory won by Russia (as mooted by some), the balance of probability currently suggests that a ceasefire is the most likely outcome. This would be based on the idea that, if the war continued for much longer, Ukraine would risk losing everything. Therefore, maintaining the current boundaries may be the best way forward. It is painful—although not as painful to watch as the empty sabre-rattling from some northern European powers, such as the UK and France, who pretend they have any real influence in terms of ground forces or mobilizing armies. Meanwhile, countries bordering the Russian bloc, such as Poland, appear to have a much greater appetite for battle, at least in terms of potential boots on the ground.
What we may have learned from the past three years is that, unless one resorts to large tactical nuclear weapons, modern warfare increasingly consists of drone activity hovering above a battlefield reminiscent of World War I trench warfare. No matter how many troops are involved—including Russia’s—21st-century warfare appears to result in an extended stalemate, even between unequal foes. Ironically, we may inadvertently be entering a new era of peace—after this three-year conflict is over. And do not mention Taiwan.
A Journey to the Right
What can be said about British politics since the summer is that, almost from the outset, Labour appeared to be spiraling downward due to a series of self-inflicted wounds, while the Conservatives were hamstrung by the wait for a new leader and then the settling in of one. Meanwhile, Reform seemed to be experiencing an unstoppable rise. However, ahead of the Ides of March, a political shift seems to have altered the landscape. Indeed, WSW could argue that things are unlikely to be the same again.
One of the problems with the new Labour government was that, having not declared itself as “New Labour,” it was instead reviving the failed economic formula of the 1960s and 70s—the very policies that led to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailing out the country. Those with long enough memories will recall that, following that embarrassing event in 1976, it was effectively the IMF that controlled the UK’s purse strings and insisted on fiscal tightening and monetarism. By the time Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives took power in 1979, a significant degree of belt-tightening had already taken place—ironically, under a party ideologically opposed to such measures.
People of a certain age will also remember how the early Thatcher years were dominated by the rhetoric of “U-turns” in response to the painful impact of government spending cuts. In the end, it was likely a mix of a U.S. economic recovery, the arrival of North Sea oil, and the “get-on-your-bike” mentality that fueled the mid-1980s boom and the yuppie era.
For some strange reason, however, the announcement of the end of NHS England by a formerly staunch socialist government suggests that the UK’s financial situation is even more desperate than previously believed. It also suggests that Labour has run out of road on the left. After 14 years of Conservative government that was either reluctant or unable to implement right-of-center policies, a Labour government now appears poised to deliver what Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, and even Liz Truss could not.
Ironically—but not surprisingly—the reaction to the abolition of NHS England has been largely positive. This move, in a manner reminiscent of DOGE-like change, suggests the government may be taking a page out of President Trump’s or Elon Musk’s playbook by attempting to reduce the size and cost of the state. It almost seems as if the government has run out of socialist policies to implement and has instead made not a U-turn, but a sharp right turn.
If even a portion of this plan succeeds, it could spell trouble for both the Conservatives and Reform. After all, stealing an opponent’s policies is as old as politics itself—and can be a winning formula. At least for Tony Blair’s early years, it worked very well indeed.
Reform’s Civil War
This was a week—and potentially a turning point—that Reform would almost certainly rather forget, as it continued to air its dirty laundry in public in the wake of the Rupert Lowe fiasco. It is difficult to describe this as anything other than a fiasco, given that a relatively new party, which had been leading in some polls (and even topping them at times), has now thrown away its credibility in a manner that seems nearly impossible to recover from.
The in-fighting within Reform suggests an organization operating with a “rats-in-a-sack” dynamic, where leadership figures engage in backstabbing behind closed doors. While such behavior is common in more established political parties, Reform’s entire raison d’être was its commitment to the British people. Now, it risks looking like little more than a vehicle for those seeking the limelight at any cost—literally.
At the same time, the Rupert Lowe affair represents an unforced error that the Conservatives could not have hoped for at a better time. Struggling under the leadership of Kemi Badenoch, the Tories were floundering. Now, they have been handed a lifeline. Even if one concedes that, with a 160+ seat Labour majority, Badenoch would struggle against Keir Starmer under any circumstances, Reform’s implosion has at least removed one major threat to Conservative support.
Truss and Tell
From a “sack of potatoes” to just “the sack”—at first glance, the revelation of a past affair between former Tory MP Mark Field and former Prime Minister Liz Truss would seem to be a bombshell. However, the real issue is that the alleged relationship took place in 2003.
Given the current state of affairs surrounding former Tory MPs, it is likely that any opportunity to profit from a story—regardless of its political significance—is a welcome one. If only there were some fresher insights into our former leader.
