There are moments when the British political class ceases to be merely foolish and becomes actively dangerous. We have now reached such a moment. On 21 February 2026, the BBC reported that Boris Johnson wants British troops deployed to the Ukraine “right now” to “flip a switch” in Vladimir Putin’s head. One almost admires the childlike quality of that phrase. Flip a switch. As if geopolitics were a lightbulb in a suburban kitchen. As if Russia were a misbehaving appliance that simply needed a brisk tap from the British Army.

The Daily Telegraph confirms that this is not merely the chatter of a failed and embittered buffoon. The Government agrees. The current Defence Secretary, John Healey, positively longs to be the man who deploys British troops to the Ukraine. He says so in print. He writes that he “wants to be the Defence Secretary who deploys British troops to Ukraine – because this will mean that this war is finally over.”

Let us begin with the obvious. Territorial wars in Eastern Europe are no business of Britain. They never have been. They never will be. There is no British town, no British port, no British farm whose safety depends on who governs Donetsk or Luhansk. There is no British family whose life and property are secured by sending young men from Yorkshire or Kent to patrol the ruins of Kharkiv.

To commit British soldiers to such a conflict is recklessness bordering on treason. If treason means anything, it must mean acting in a way that makes the British people less safe in their possession of life and property in their own country. Sending troops into a live theatre of war against a nuclear power meets that definition very comfortably.

Johnson now claims that the war could have been prevented had the West shown more “clarity and simplicity.” This is grotesque. The war was provoked by the steady expansion of NATO eastwards after 1990, despite assurances given at the time to the Soviet leadership that NATO would not move “one inch” further east. Those assurances were quietly forgotten as Poland, the Baltic states, and others were absorbed into the Western military orbit.

To push a hostile military alliance into what was always certain to become once again the declared sphere of influence of a recovered Russia was not an accident. It was an invitation. It was a calculated risk taken by people who assumed that Russia would either accept humiliation indefinitely or collapse internally.

Russia did neither. There was a moment in the spring of 2022 when this war might have ended. Negotiations in Istanbul reportedly produced a draft framework under which Ukraine would adopt neutrality in return for security guarantees. Whether that framework would have held is unknowable. What is not in dispute is that Boris Johnson travelled to Kiev at that critical moment.

It has since been widely reported — including in Ukrainian outlets — that Johnson signalled strong Western opposition to any settlement seen as accommodating Russia. Johnson denies that he blocked a peace deal. Others maintain that the message delivered was clear: continued Western support depended on Ukraine fighting on.

We are unlikely ever to see the full record. But this much can be said without hesitation: Johnson publicly and energetically urged the continuation of the war. He framed it as a civilisational struggle. He pressed for more weapons, more escalation. He dismissed caution as weakness.

If there was a viable path to ending the conflict early, and if Western leaders discouraged it, then the moral responsibility for the war’s prolongation does not rest in Moscow alone. Those who urged the fighting to continue must live with the consequences of that advice. And the consequences are measured in graves.

The BBC piece allows him to present himself as a prophet unheeded. He regrets that the West was too slow. He regrets that Crimea was not confronted more aggressively. He regrets that Putin was “emboldened.” What he does not regret—at least not publicly—is that he personally encouraged the prolongation of a war that has reduced Ukraine to rubble and sent its young men into a meat grinder.

Now he wants British troops on the ground. “Peaceful ground forces,” he calls them. Putin, for his part, has already stated that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine would be legitimate targets. So what exactly is being proposed? That British soldiers be sent into a country where a nuclear-armed power has declared them targets, in order to “flip a switch” in that power’s leader?

This is not strategy. It is adolescent fantasy dressed up as Churchillian resolve – or do I repeat myself?

John Healey’s article in The Daily Telegraph is scarcely better. He speaks of pride, unity, courage, and the highest-ever level of military support. He speaks of deploying British troops “once peace is secured.” But he also admits that planning is advanced, that a 70-person headquarters is already up and running, and that £200 million has been allocated to prepare the Armed Forces for deployment. This is how wars begin. Not with declarations, but with committees.

Healey wants to be the Defence Secretary who deploys British troops because that will mean “this war is finally over.” No, it will mean that Britain is directly involved in a conflict with Russia. It will mean that what was once a proxy war becomes something else entirely. It will mean that British soldiers, and potentially British cities, become part of the equation.

The language used by both men is revealing. Putin is “weak but dangerous.” Russia is desperate. The Ukrainian will is indomitable. We are told that 25 Russian casualties occur for every Ukrainian one. We are told that the Russian economy is crumbling. We are told that victory is near.

If all that were true, there would be no need to send British troops. The truth is simpler. The war has reached a stalemate at best and a slow Ukrainian decline at worst. The West has poured in tens of billions of dollars and euros. The casualty figures are appalling. The Ukrainian economy survives on external life support. And the political class in London, having invested its prestige in this adventure, cannot bear to admit failure. So the answer is escalation.

A patriotic government, if one ever takes power in this country, will need to clean house. It will need to examine not only the politicians who have led Britain towards confrontation with Russia, but also the senior officers of the Armed Forces who have cheerfully supported this course. It will need to ask why generals and admirals appear on television to advocate policies that increase the likelihood of war with a nuclear power.

If the armed forces are the servants of the state, they must not become the enthusiastic accomplices of political folly. Court martial may sound extreme. So is risking national annihilation for the sake of abstract “credibility” in Eastern Europe. We are geographically separated from the battlefield by thousands of miles. Our primary duty is to safeguard our own people.

Instead, we are treated to grandstanding speeches, and the ritual cry of “Slava Ukraini.” All very stirring. All very safe when spoken in Westminster or on the BBC sofa. Less stirring for the young soldier who might find himself in Lvov under missile fire.

There is a pattern here. For decades, Britain has subordinated its foreign policy to Washington. Our politicians are raised within that vassalage. They speak the language of NATO communiqués as if it were Holy Writ. Independent thought is discouraged. Caution is dismissed as weakness. Dissent is equated with disloyalty. But loyalty to whom? To Britain, or to an abstract “international order” defined in Washington and Brussels?

Sending British troops to Ukraine would not make Britain safer. It would not make Europe more stable. It would not end the war. It would merely bind us more tightly to a conflict that was avoidable, that was prolonged by folly, and that now risks sliding into something far worse.

If there remains any sense in the country, this proposal should be rejected with contempt. Let Boris Johnson chase applause elsewhere. Let John Healey fantasise about his place in the history books. The lives of British soldiers are not stage props in their personal dramas.

A government that truly cared for its people would say what ought to have been said from the beginning: this is not our war.